J".  3  /o5: 

Srom  f^e  feiBrari?  of 

(profcBBor  ^amuef  (ttlifPer 

in  (pernor)?  of 

Subge  ^amuef  (ttttfPer  QSrecftinrtbge 

^reecnteb  6^ 

^amuef  (tttiffer  QB^recftinnbge  &ong 

to  f^e  fei6rarg  of 

(Princeton  S^eofogtcaf  ^emtnarj 


BV  811  .F684 

Fowler,  Orin, 

1791-1852. 

Four  Sabbath 

evening 

lectures  on 

the  mode  and 

7 


/  Jf:/C  ^J^^ 


c.::^ 


■V'c^-^V*-*    iPj-i^//'^int  — 


THE  MODE  AND  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


FOUR 


SABBATH  EVENING  LECTURES 


MODE   AND   SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM, 


PREACHED    IN    NOVEMBER    AND    DECEMBER,    1834. 


BEFORE    THE 


CHURCH  AND  CONGREGATION 


TO    WHICH    THE    AUTHOR   MINISTERS. 


^ 


BY  ORIN   FOWLER,  A.  M., 

Faster  of  the  First  Congregational  Churcli  in  Fall  River,  Mass 


So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations.  —  Isaiah. 
For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body.  —  Paul. 

If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  thoughi 
one  rose  from  the  dead.— Jesus  Christ. 


PUBLISHED    BY    REQUEST    OF    THE    CHURCH. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED   BY    WILLIAM    PEIRCE, 

NO.    9    CORNHILL. 


1835. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1835, 

Bv  ORIN  FOWLER, 

In  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


BOSTON; 

Webster  &  Southard,  Printers, 

No.  9,  Cornhill. 


LETTER    TO  THE  AUTHOR. 

Fall  River,  Jan.  5,  1835, 
Dear  Sir, 

The  undersigned  were  appointed  a  Committee  of  the  church  to  convey  to  you 
the  following  resolutions: 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  church,  the  series  of  Lectures  recent- 
ly delivered  by  our  I'astor,  on  the  mode  and  subjects  of  Baptism,  contain  a  plain 
and  just  exhibition  of  the  truth  on  these  subjects;  and  having  been,  as  we  believe, 
kind  and  forbearing  towards  oui-  brethren  in  Christ  who  differ  from  us  on  these 
points  of  Christian  duty,  we  most  heartily  approve  of  the  spirit  manifested,  and 
the  sentiments  and  arguments  therein  set  forth. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  as  in  our  opinion,  the  publication  of  these  Lectures  would 
be  the  instrument  of  good  in  allayuig  unkind  and  unholy  feelings  —  in  correcting 
erroneous  impressions,  and  in  establishing  the  truth;  therefore,  our  Pastor  be 
requested  to  furnish  a  copy  for  publication." 

We  will  only  add  as  these  resolutions  express  our  own  sentiments  and  desires, 
we  hope  your  convictions  of  duty  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  will  lead  you  to  consent 
to  the  request  of  the  church. 

Very  respectfully,  we  are  your  brethren  in  Christ, 
DAVID  ANTHONY,  1 

DAVID  OLNEY,  (  . 

„ J    CommittPC  of  the 

SYLVESTER    C.    ALLEN,       }  Congregational 

WILLIAM  SHAW,  "'      '    " "  " 

MATTHEW    C.   DURFEE.  J 


Church.  Fall  River. 


REPLY. 


Jan.  10,  1835. 


Dear  Brethren, 

Your  Note  of  the  5th  inst.  communicating  the  resolutions  and  wishes  of  the 
church,  and  your  own  sentiments  and  desires,  that  I  will  consent  to  furnish  a 
copy  of  my  Sabbath  Evening  Lectures  on  Baptism  for  publication,  is  before  me. 
The  responsibility  connected  with  printing  —  as  also  the  fact  that  abler  treatises 
are  already  before  the  public,  furnish  strong  reasons  for  refusing  my  consent:  but 
on  the  other  hand,  the  hope  that  these  Lectures  may  be  read  by  some  who  will 
thus  become  more  thoroughly  acquainted  with  important  Bible  truth,  together 
with  a  strong  reluctance  to  withhold  from  the  church  what  they  seem  sincerely 
to  desire,  have  decided  me  to  comply  with  their  request.  A  copy  shall  be  in 
readiness  for  the  press  as  soon  as  they  can  be  transcribed. 

Affectionately  your  friend  and  servant  in  the  Gospel, 

O.  FOWLER. 


IV  CORRESPONDENCE. 

A  favorable  opportunity  having  occurred  for  submitting  these  Lectures  to  a 
few  brethren,  the  following  kind  notices  have  been  put  into  the  Author's 
hand. 

"Rochester,  Mass.  Jan.  13,  1835. 

Having  examined  the  following  Lectures  in  manuscript,  I  am  happy  to  observe 
that  the  mode  of  Baptism  practiced  in  the  Congregational  and  other  Peedobaptist 
Churches,  and  the  duty  of  Infant  Baptism,  are  judiciously  discussed,  and  shown 
to  be  supported,  as  they  unquestionably  are,  by  the  word  of  God  and  the  history 
of  the  Church  of  Christ.  THOMAS  ROBBINS, 

Pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church,  in  Jilatlapoisett,  Rochester." 

"  Dear   Brother, 

I  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  of  examining  your  Lectures  on  the  mode  and 
subjects  of  Baptism.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  you  have  a  right  view 
of  the  whole  subject,  and  have  sustained  your  positions  by  arguments  which  never 
have  been  and  never  can  be  overthrown.  For  those  who  differ  from  me  on 
these  points,  I  have  the  kindest  Christian  feelings;  but  twenty -five  years'  exami- 
nation and  observation  have  convinced  me  that  God  is  a  covenant  God,  and 
blesses  such  as  honor  him  in  the  dedication  of  their  children.  For  the  universal 
spread  of  right  views  and  Christian  feeling,  we  will  ever  pray. 

Yours, 

S.  HOLMES, 
Pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church,  JVeui  Bedford." 
Rev.  O.  fowler, 

"Providence,  Jan.  20,  1835. 
Rev.   and  Dear   Sir, 

The  MODE  and  subjects  of  Baptism  involve  questions  of  paramount  impor- 
tance, in  the  organization  and  discipline  of  the  Christian  church.  A  mistake  on 
either  of  these  points,  cannot  but  be  connected  with  disastrous  consequences. 
He  then,  who  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  the  full  light  of  Scripture,  and  history,  and  ex- 
perience, plants  both  feet  on  the  everlasting  covenant  of  grace,  and  by  force  of 
argument  unimpeachable  and  unanswerable,  dispels  perversion  and  ignorance,  as 
you  have  done,  deserves  the  thanks  and  approbation  of  every  individual,  who  by 
spiritual  relationship  is  a  child  of  Abrahamic  promise.  Especially  is  this  true 
at  this  day,  when  providential  movements,  in  relation  to  little  children  and 
parental  influence,  are  hailed  as  among  the  most  brilliant  tokens  of  the  approach 
of  that  day  when  all  shall  know  the  Lord,  and  when  the  child  shall,  in  attainment 
and  blessing,  die,  being  an  hundred  years  old.  May  your  laborious  and  very 
critical  exposition  of  this  unspeakably  interesting  subject,  be,  under  God,  emin- 
ently subservient  to  the  hastening  of  that  time,  when  all  parents,  like  Noah,  shall 
come  with  their  whole  house,  into  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  salvation.  May  your 
efforts  quicken  ministers,  churches  and  parents,  to  hold  fast  the  promise,  which  lias 
been  revealed  in  the  hope  of  glory  to  thousands,  and  tens  of  thousands  of  hearts: 
'  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee.'  For  the  perusal  of  your 
Sabbath  Evening  Lectures  on  these  topics,  with  which  you  have  been  so  kind 
as  to  favor  me,  accept  my  acknowledgments.  I  probably  feel  more  interest  in 
them,  as  thoy  are  fitted  for  circulation  among  the  thinking,  anxiously  inquiring, 
and  quick  discerning  people  of  Rhode  Island.      I  can  assure  you,  my  dear  sir. 


CORRESPONDENCE.  V 

that  there  are  thousands  in  this  State,  who  are  calling  for  light  on  a  subject  over 
which  darkness  and  perversion  have  so  long  reigned. 

Yours  fraternall}',  and  in  the  bonds  of  the  eternal  covenant, 

T.  T.  WATERMAN, 

Pastor  of  the  Richmond  Street  Congregational  Piedobaptist  Church,  Providence,  R,  I." 

''Pawtucket  Jan.  20,  1835. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  acknowledge  your  kindness  in  aflbrding  me  the  priv- 
ilege of  perusing  your  Sabbath  Evening  Lectures  on  the  mode  and  subjects  of 
baptism.  Permit  me  to  say,  I  am  highly  pleased,  with  the  candor  and  Christian 
spirit  which  they  breathe  — with  the  clearness  and  force  of  the  arguments  —  with 
the  critical  research —  with  the  philological  views  which  they  contain,  and  with 
the  scriptural  and  other  undoubted  authorities  by  which  your  positions  are  so  fully 
supported.  These  Lectures  are  well  calculated  to  promote  the  cause  of  evan- 
gelical piety —  to  establish  the  wavering,  and  to  convince  those  who  may  be  con- 
vinced. I  am  glad,  dear  sir,  that  the  principles  of  the  eternal  covenant  of  grace 
are  beginning  to  be  better  understood  in  Rhode  Island.  The  views  presented  in 
your  Lectures  are,  in  my  opinion,  based  upon  the  immutable  oracles  of  God,  and 
such  as  were  clearly  and  fearlessly,  enforced  by  the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  and  Paedo- 
baptists  generally.  Yours  in  the  faith  and  atonement  and  privileges  of  Jesus 
Christ.  BARNABAS  PHINNEY, 

Pastor  of  the  Congregational  Padubaptist  chm-ch,  PaicLucket.^' 

Rev.  O.   FOWLER. 


PREFACE. 


These  Lectures  are  printed  because  the  Author  could  not  deny  what  seemed 
to  be  a  sincere  and  reasonable  request  of  the  church  to  which  he  ministers.  They 
were  preached,  not  because  he  was  publicly  assailed;  (this  he  could  have  borne 
in  silence;)  but  because  truths  which  lie  deems  of  great  importance  to  the  wel- 
fare of  Zion,  were  publicly  calumniated,  and  his  own  sentiments  touching  those 
truths  publicly  misrepresented.  These  circumstances,  luipleasant  and  unforeseen, 
seemed  to  demand  of  him  a  serious  and  thorough  discussion  of  the  matters  in 
question.  Such  a  discussion,  if  prosecuted  for  the  love  of  truth,  and  with  the  for- 
bearance of  charity,  he  hoped,  might  to  some  extent,  defend  from  perversion  an 
important  institution  of  the  gospel;  and  thus  subserve,  both  the  religious  improve- 
ment of  the  people  of  his  charge,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  Redeemer's 
kingdom. 

Critical,  calm,  and  kind  discussion,  was  demanded.  It  is  this  kind  of  discus- 
sion alone,  that  ever  advances  the  cause  of  truth.  In  personal  controversy,  the 
Author  could  not  consent  to  embark.  In  preparing  these  Lectures,  it  has  been  his 
aim,  to  avoid  all  personalities  —  to  state  fairly  the  questions  at  issue  —  and  to  de- 
bate these  questions  honestly,  manfully,  and  in  the  fear  of  God.  That  he  has 
spoken  like  one  in  earnest,  he  acknowledges  —  but  hopes  his  earnestness  has  been 
inspired  only  by  the  love  of  truth,  and  the  settled  conviction  that  the  views  he  at- 
tempts to  defend,  are  according  to  the  word  of  God.  If  there  be  aught  in  the 
spirit  and  temper  of  these  Lectures  which  any  one  can  justly  censure,  it  has  es- 
caped his  notice,  and  when  discovered,  will  be  sincerely  regretted. 

The  Author  cheerfully  makes  the  common  acknowledgment,  that  many  as  well 
as  abler  treatises  have  already  appeared;  and  he  pleads  the  common  apology  that 
these  Lectures  were  prepared  under  the  pressure  of  weekly  pastoral  labors  — but 
still  he  hopes  they  may  be  of  local  and  temporary,  —  if  not  of  general  and 
permanent  service  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  piety.  The  numerous  references 
they  contain  have  been  made  with  care  and  labor,  and  he  thinks  may  be  relied  on 
as  correct.  Original  sources  of  information  have  been  sought  and  improved,  as 
far  as  possible.  The  best  works  on  both  sides  of  the  controversy,  within  his 
reach,  have  been  consulted.      Mosheim,  Milner,  Calvin,  Wall,  Doddridge,  Bald- 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

win,  Dwight,  Pengilly,  Scapula,  Hedericus,  Pond,  Ripley,  Woods,  Edwards,  Stu- 
art, Judson,  Reed,  Concord,  Lathrop,  Wardlaw  and  many  others  have  been  care- 
fully and  freely  consulted.  To  VV^all's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes, and  Pond's  Treatise,  he  is  particularly  indebted. 

Fn  some  instances  he  may  have  imconsciously  used  the  thoughts  of  others  with- 
out due  acknowledgment.  Indeed,  it  would  be  difficult  to  ascertain  to  whom 
many  valuable  thoughts  on  this  subject  originally  belonged.  In  examining  the 
meaninw  of  Baptizo,  it  has  been,  of  course,  necessary  to  introduce  Greek  and 
Latin  words,  but  in  all  instances  translations  are  given,  so  that  the  English  reader 
may  omit  these  words,  without  perplexity  or  loss.  For  the  sake  of  convenience, 
Greek  words  are  printed  in  English  characters.  The  local  circumstances,  con- 
nected with  this  discussion,  required  the  examination  of  several  topics,  which,  to 
the  distant  reader,  may  seem  foreign  to  the  main  subject;  but  the  Author  hopes 
even  these  topics  will  not  be  found  uninteresting. 

The  imperfections  of  these  Lectures  he  hopes  will  be  rendered  harmless,  and 
their  merits,  if  they  possess  any,  useful  through  the  blessing  of  God,  and  the 
kindness  and  candor  of  his  readers.  Such  as  they  are,  they  are  affectionately  in- 
scribed to  the  church  and  congregation  before  whom  they  were  delivered,  with 
the  hope  and  fervent  prayer  that  they  may  promote  their  spiritual  prosperity,  as 
well  as  that  of  all  others  into  whose  hands  they  may  fall.  * 

ORIN  FOWLER. 

Fall  River,  Mass.  Jan.  20, 1835. 

*  See  Appendix.  [Note  A.] 


LECTURE   I. 

MODE     OF     BAPTISM. 

PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.— THE  QUESTION  AT  ISSUE DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM — 

MEANING  OF  BAPTIZO. 

MATT.    XXVIII,  18,  19. 

Go  ye  therefore,  auil  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son? 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you  ;  and  lo,  I  am  with  yon  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.     Amen. 

This  is  the  commission  given  by  Jesus  Christ  to  his  ministers, 
to  disciple,  baptize  and  teach  all  the  nations  of  the  earth — togeth- 
er with  his  promise  that  he  will  be  with  them  alway,  to  the  end 
of  the  world.  In  this  commission,  Christ  instituted  the  ordinance 
of  Christian  baptism.  The  langaage  of  this  commission  suggests 
two  inquiries  :  what  is  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism  ?  and  who 
are  the  subjects  of  Christian  baptism  1 

It  will  be  my  object  in  this  Lecture  to  answer  the  Jirst  only 
of  these  inquiries.  If  Providence  permit,  I  shall  hereafter  at- 
tempt an  answer  to  the  secotid. 

What  is  the  mode  of  Christian  Baptism,  involved  in  this  Insti- 
tution of  our  Lord? 

Before  I  enter  upon  the  solution  of  this  question,  permit  me  to 
detain  you  a  few  moments  with  some  preliminary  remarks.  In 
our  inquiries  after  truth  on  this  subject,  it  should  be  remembered, 
that  there  is  no  injunction  anywhere  given  in  the  Bible,  respect- 
ing the  mode  in  which  baptism  must  be  performed.  We  are 
simply  directed  to  be  baptized.  The  element  (water)  with  which 
—  not  the  mode  in  which,  baptism  must  be  performed,  is  desig- 
2 


10  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

nated  in  the  Bible.  The  fact  that  no  injunction  is  given,  defin- 
ing the  mode,  shows  conclusively  that  the  mode  is  an  immateri- 
al circumstance.  It  may  be  by  affusion  or  immersion  indiffer- 
ently. The  advocates  of  immersion*  often  assert  that  we  are 
commanded  to  be  immersed.  But  the  proof  of  this  assertion, 
they  have  never  yet  produced.  They  cannot  produce  it.  The 
command  is  simply  to  be  baptized. 

Again  :  many  of  the  advocates  of  immersion,  being  unable  to 
meet  the  arguments  we  bring  from  the  Old  Testament  in  sup- 
port of  affusion,  assume  the  fearful  responsibility,  of  rejecting,  as 
obsolete,  that  part  of  the  Bible,  so  far  as  it  touches  upon  this  sub- 
ject. We  say  frankly,  that  we  have  no  sympathy  for  a  system, 
the  support  of  which  requires  the  rejection  of  any  part  of  the  Bi- 
ble. We  believe  with  Paul,  that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspi- 
ration of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correc- 
tion, for  instruction  in  righteousness." 

Again  :  some  of  the  advocates  of  immersion,  being  unable  to 
meet  the  Scripture  proof  we  bring  in  favor  of  affusion  as  the  tnode, 
resort  to  the  artifice  of  raising  questions  about  Infant  Baptism. — 
For  example  ;  one  of  their  ablest  champions,  remarking  upon 
passages  that  bear  only  upon  the  mode^  repeatedly  throws  out  in- 
sinuations like  this  :  "  Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  there  were  any 
infants  included  in  this  account?"  And  again  —  "It  is  impossible 
that  this  account  should  afford  any  pretence  for  Infant  Baptism." 
Now  this  method  of  avoiding  the  force  of  truth  is  exceedingly  dis- 
ingenuous ;  and  disputants  never  resort  to  it,  when  they  can  de- 
fend their  cause  with  substantial  reasons. 

Again  :  the  advocates  of  immersion  frequently  represent  some 
one  denomination  of  Pasdobaptists,  (the  Congregationalists  for  ex- 
ample,) as  composing  but  a  small  part  of  the  Christian  world,  and 
then  infer  that  immersion  is  the  only  mode — and  with  the  un- 
informed, this  artifice  frequently  has  its  intended  effect.  But  it 
should  be  remembered  that  not  only  Congregationalists,  but  Pres- 
byterians, who  are  perfectly  united  with  us  in  every  article  except 
that  of  Church  Government ;  and  Methodists,  Episcopahans, 
Moravians,  Lutherans  ;  in  short  nearly  all  sects,  except  that  which 
advocates  exclusive  immersion,  are  Pffidobaptists,  and  all  these 
compose  at  least  three  fourths,  probably  nine  tenths,  of  the  Chris- 

*  By  the  advocates  of  iimiiorsion,  I  nioim  those  wlio  hold  llial  immersion  is  the 
only  vaHd  mode  oi" Christian  baptism. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  11 

tian  world.  If,  therefore,  there  be  any  weight  in  the  argument  of 
numbers,  it  Hes  on  the  Ptt'dobaptist  side.* 

Again  :  the  advocates  of  immersion  have  long  been  affirming 
that  the  whole  Christian  world  would  soon  join  them,  and  for  half 
a  century  past,  they  have  been  calling  over  the  list  of  all  who 
have  left  the  Paedobaptists  and  joined  them  ;  and  drawn  the  in- 
ference that  themselves  only  are  right.  This  method  of  defend- 
ing their  views,  would  never  be  practiced  but  for  the  paucity  of 
sound  arguments.  Did  we  consider  it  necessary  to  speak  of  those 
who  have  changed  from  their  views  to  ours,  we  might  name  Jane- 
way,  Skinner,  Smith,  Howe,  Lane,  Spencer,  two  by  the  name  of 
Dodge,  Snow,  Ogleby,  Edwards,  Chapin,  Potter,  Allen,  and  a  host 
of  other  distinguished  Ptedopabtist  ministers,  and  many  laymen 
in  nearly  all  our  churches,  who  were  once  the  advocates  of  exclu- 
sive immersion.  We  might  mention  the  European  and  Amer- 
ican Mennonites  or  Dutch  Baptists,  who  have  adopted  pouring 
instead  of  immersion,  and  who  numbered,  (See  Benedict,  Vol.  I. 
p.  150,)  252  churches  and  533  ministers  :  the  Dutch  Baptists  in 
Germany,  Holland,  Poland  and  Transylvania,  within  60  years, 
have  by  thousands  become  Psedobaptists :  but  we  have  no  wish 
to  dwell  upon  this  triumph  of  our  views  of  truth.t 

Again:  some  of  the  advocates  of  immersion  represent  us  as 
admitting  that  they  are  right,  though  we  refuse  to  join  them. 
This  representation  has  no  foundation  in  truth.  We  admit  im- 
mersion may  be  valid  baptism  ;  but  we  deny  that  it  is  the  only 

*"In  the  Methodist  connection,"  says  a  respectable  minister  of  that  church, 
in  a  letter  now  lying  before  me,  "  we  have  no  ministers  or  members  in  our  church, 
who  say  that  persons  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pom-ing  are  not  baptized.  No 
man,  among  us,  can  receive  ordination,  unless  he  will  administer  baptism  to  chil- 
dren and  in  that  mode  the  parents  may  request.  Immersion  is  practiced,"  he  adds, 
"  among  us  nuich  less  than  formerly,  and  many  of  our  people  who  were  immersed, 
say  if  it  was  to  do  over  again,  they  would  be  baptized  by  aflusion  in  the  house  of 
God  as  the  most  proper  mode  and  place." 

t  An  attempt  is  being  made  to  circulate  widely  an  impression,  that  a  yoimg  man 
at  Andover  has  lately  become  an  advocate  of  exclusive  immersion,  in  consequence 
of  a  remarkable  conversation  said  to  have  been  held  between  him  and  Professor 
Stuart,  but  the  story  is  wholly  without  foundation;  and  yet  hundreds  may  read 
and  thousands  hear  of  it,  who  will  never  know  on  earth  that  it  is  entirely  false. 
The  story  has  been  submitted  to  Prof  Stuart,  who  says,  in  a  letter  dated  Nov. 
19,  1834,  "  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  never  exchanged  a  word  with  him 
on  the  subject  of  baptism,  at  any  time  whatever;  nor  did  any  other  person  ever 
have  such  a  conversation  with  me.  Moses  Stitart^" 


12  MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

valid  mode  of  baptism.  And  we  call  upon  them,  (hitherto  we 
have  called  in  vain,)  to  show  us  Bible  evidence  that  there  is  no 
other  baptism  but  immersion.  As  they  have  noi  proved,  and  we 
believe  cannot  prove  their  position  ;  far  from  admitting  they  are 
right,  we  believe  they  are  in  palpable  error.  Hence  to  represent 
us  as  admitting  that  they  are  right,  is  doing  us  gross  injustice. 
No  man  of  candor  will  do  it.  Man}^  of  the  advocates  of  immer- 
sion have  not  done  it.  When  it  is  done,  w^e  fear  it  is  to  serve  a 
j)urj)ose. 

Again :  the  advocates  of  immersion  frequently  quote  the 
practice  of  the  Greek  Church  to  sustain  their  views ;  but  they 
quote  her  only  so  far  as  that  corrupt  communion  will  serve  their 
end.  The  Greek  Church  do  ordinarily  (not  always)  practice  im- 
mersion;* and  they  uniformly  practice  Infant  Baptism.  Why 
do  the  advocates  of  immersion  quote  the  Greeks  in  support  of  the 
mode,  and  yet  reject  and  ridicule  their  practice  of  Infant  Baptism? 
Besides ;  the  Greek  Church,  or,  as  it  is  usually  called,  the  Orien- 
tal Church,  is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  among  the  most  cor- 
rupt and  ignorant  of  all  who  bear  the  Christian  name,  and  as 
truly  the  objects  of  missionary  enterprize  as  any  part  of  the  Pagan 
world. 

Again  :  many  of  the  advocates  of  immersion  say  we  are  too 
proud  to  submit  to  immersion.  We  will  not  boast  of  our  humil- 
ity; but  this  we  admit  —  we  do  fear  that  many  who  advocate 
exclusive  immersion  have  tested  their  hopes,  by  their  mode  of  ob- 
serving the  external  rite,  rather  than  by  that  meek  and  unobtru- 
sive spirit,  which  in  the  sight  of  God  is  of  great  price.  There 
may  be  vastly  more  pride  connected  with  an  external  mode 
which  attracts  the  gaze  of  the  muliitude,  than  with  a  mode  less 
imposing. 

Again :  in  discussing  the  question  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism, 
we  Paedobaptists  act  on  the  defensive; — we  make  no  assault 
upon  the  practice  of  others.  If  they  prefer  immersion,  we  will 
not  reproach  them  for  it ;  and  we  are  ready,  notwithstanding,  to 
fellowship  them  in  all  Christian  ordinances,  as  brethren.     But 

*  Wall  says,  p.  477,  (T  have  before  mc  the  2d  London  edition,  of  1707,) 
*'  The  Greek  Cliurcli  liardly  count  a  child,  except  in  cases  of  sickness,  well 
baptized  without  immersion."  So  in  some  cases,  then,  they  do  consider  afHision 
valid.  Reed  says,  (p.  .30,'5,)  "  The  (Jreek  Church  universally  practice  Infant 
Baptism.  They  commoH/y  dip  their  infinls,  hut  not  invariably;  for  the  mode 
of  baptizing  is  not  considered  by  tliem  essential." 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  13 

when  they  affirm  that  we  are  unbaptizcd  persons,  and  refuse  us 
Christian  intercourse  in  the  communion  of  the  saints ;  especially 
when  they  hold  up  to  public  reproach,  the  doctrines,  duties  and 
forms  of  worship,  which  we  solemnly  believe  are  taught  in  the 
word  of  God ;  we  feel  ourselves  sacredly  bound  to  vindicate  our 
views  of  truth,  and  our  practice  as  disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

Again:  we  are  often  told,  that  faith,  should  precede  baptism, 
and  in  proof,  this  passage  is  brought ;  "Believe  and  be  baptized." 
Believing  is  indeed  here  put  before  baptism  ;  but  in  other  passages 
baptism  is  put  first.  Thus:  "Except  a  man  be  born  oi  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
"  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  —  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  "  Be  baptized  —  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  baptism  is  put  before  regeneration  by 
the  Spirit —  the  thing  which  it  signifies.  If,  then,  any  argument 
can  be  raised  from  the  order  of  language,  it  surely  is  in  favor  of 
putting  baptism  before  faith,  rather  than  after  it. 

Again :  most  advocates  of  immersion  misrepresent  Psedobap- 
tist  authors  ;  asserting  that  those  authors  testify  in  their  favor 
and  support  their  views ;  and  probably  they  sometimes  create  the 
belief,  in  uninformed  minds,  that  their  assertions  are  true.  This 
is  exceedingly  reprehensible  and  disingenuous.  By  Pajdobaptists, 
they  obviously  mean  those  who  hold  to  the  validity  of  baptism 
by  affusion.  If  this  be  their  meaning,  they  cannot  produce  a 
single  Pajdobaptist  who  will  testify  that  immersion  is  the  only 
valid  mode.  The  supposition  that  a  man,  who  holds  affusion  to 
be  a  valid  mode,  will  testify,  nevertheless,  that  immersion  is  the 
only  valid  mode,  involves  a  contradiction.  No  Paedobaptist,  of 
common  sense,  has  done  it.  Picdobaptists  do  indeed  admit,  that 
immersion  may  be  valid  baptism  :  but  the  question  is  not  whether 
immersion  be  valid  baptism;  —  it  is,  whether  immersion  be  the 
only  valid  baptism.  On  this  (juestion,  Piedobaptists,  with  united 
voice,  answer  no :  and  thus  they  stand,  not  with  the  advocates 
of  immersion,  but  on  the  other  side. 

These  remarks  being  premised  ;  let  us  now  state  the  question 
before  us.  What  is  the  point  to  which  our  attention  should  be 
directed,  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism?  A  clear  definition  of  this 
question  is  vitally  important.  The  point  in  debate,  is  this :  on 
the  one  side,  the  advocates  of  immersion  insist  that  immersion 


14  MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

is  ESSENTIAL  to  baptism  —  that  immersion  is  the  only  mode  — 
that  nothing  is  baptism  but  immersion.  On  the  other  side,  we 
Ptedobaptists  admit  that  immersion  may  be  a  mode  of  baptism  : 
but  we  deny  that  immersion  is  the  07ily  mode,  and  insist  that 
affusion  is  a  Scripture  mode  of  baptism.*  The  real  question, 
then,  and  the  only  question,  is  this  :  Is  immersion  the  only  gospel 
mode  of  baptism  ?  Hence,  if  the  advocates  of  immersion  show 
that  immersion  is  a  Scripture  mode  and  show  no  more,  they  do 
not  touch  the  question  in  debate.  We  admit  that  immersion  may 
be  a  gospel  mode  of  baptism.  But  is  this  the  only  gospel  mode  ? 
The  advocates  of  immersion  take  the  ajffir^native,  and  therefore 
the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  them ;  and  we  believe  they  hare  never 
yet  made  out  their  point.  Indeed  they  rarely  attempt  it.  They 
generally  dwell  on  what  is  admitted.  We  Peedobaptists  take  the 
negative  of  this  question.  We  aflirm  that  immersion  is  not  the 
only  mode ;  and  that  affusion  is  a  gospel  mode  of  baptism.  In 
proof  of  our  position  we  urge, 

I.  The  DESIGN  of  baptism. 

The  advocates  of  immersion  frequently  affirm  that  the  design 
of  baptism  is  to  symbolize  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ ; 
and  they  infer  that  this  design  requires  immersion.  In  proof 
they  refer  to  Rom.  6:4;  Col.  2 :  12  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  29  ;  1  Pet.  3 : 
21.  A  critical  and  thorough  examination  of  these  proof  texts 
will  show  any  unbiased  man  that  they  furnish  no  satisfactory 
evidence  to  the  point.t  Besides,  if  the  design  of  baptism  be  to 
symbolize  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  why  not  put  the 
candidate  for  this  ordinance  into  a  rock  1  Christ,  after  his  cru- 
cifixion, was  buried  in  a  rock  —  not  in  the  water.  His  resurrec- 
tion from  the  grave  was  out  of  a  rock ;  not  out  of  the  water.  Even 
at  his  baptism,  which  was  long  before  his  burial  and  resurrection, 
there  is  no  certain  evidence,  (as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel,)  that  he 
was  immersed,  and  thus  buried  in  the  water.  It  is  not  certain 
that  he  even  went  into  the  water  where  it  was  six  inches  deep. 
Moreover,  there  is  no  analogy  between  that  purification  which 
the  use  of  water  denotes,  and  the  loathsomeness  and  putridity 
of  the  grave.     The  Bible  makes  the  death  of  Christ  a  matter 

*  I  use  the  word  affusion  to  designate  the  act  oi pouring  upon,  or  sprinkling 
witli.    I  use  the  word  immersion  to  designate  tiie  act  of  dipping  or  plunging  into, 
t  See  Appendix.   [Note  B.] 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM,  15 

of  fundamental  importance,  and  it  teaches  ug  to  celebrate  his 
death  by  appropriate  symbols  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  as  may  be 
seen,  1  Cor.  11:  24  —  26;  Mark  14:  24;  Matt.  26 :  26  —  28. 
But  the  Bible  nowhere  teaches  us  to  celebrate  his  burial  and 
resurrection,  (which  took  place  after  his  crucifixion,)  either  literally 
or  symbohcally  :  —  this  could  be  done  appropriately  only  by  put- 
ting the  candidate  into  an  excavated  rock.  Joseph  laid  the  body 
of  Jesus  "  in  his  own  new  tomb,  which  he  had  hewn  out  in  the 
rock." 

What  then  is  the  design  of  baptism  ?  What  does  this  rite 
signify  1  I  answer,  piwijicatioit  ;  and  this  is  the  only  Scriptural 
and  consistent  answer  that  can  be  given.  More  fully  —  it  is  the 
design  of  baptism  to  represent  the  purification  of  the  soidy 
and  our  engrafting  into  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost :  and  the 
visitation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  performance  of  this  work,  is 
always  represented  in  the  Bible  by  language  which  denotes  affu- 
sion —  never  by  language  which  denotes  immersion.  As  water 
baptism  is  a  symbol  of  spiritual  baptism,  and  sets  before  us,  by 
an  emphatical  sign,  the  purifying  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
we  should  expect  to  find  that  mode  of  baptism  sanctioned  in  the 
Bible,  which  accords  with  the  mode  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
represented  as  descending  upon  the  heart.  This  is  always  by 
affusion.  As  this  is  a  point  of  some  importance,  let  me  refer  you 
to  the  proof  that  the  design  of  baptism  is  as  now  stated.  "  Christ 
loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify 
and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing,  (not  immersion)  of  water  by 
the  word,  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  church,, 
not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing ;  but  that  it  should 
be  holy  and  without  blemish."  "According  to  his  mercy  he 
saved  us,  by  the  w^ashing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost :"  that  is,  we  are  saved  by  the  regenerating  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  which  washing  with  water  is  a  symbol- 
So  again  :  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance 
of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience, 
and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  Here  the  washing  of 
the  body  with  pure  water  is  joined  with  the  thing  signified  by  it : 
to  wit,  having  the  heart  sprinkled  or  purified  from  an  evil  con- 
science. So  saith  Peter :  "  The  like  figure  whereunto  baptism 
doth  now  save  us :  not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  llesh," 
[not  the  mere  outward  cleanshig  by  baptismal  water]  "  but  the 


16  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God : "  that  is,  our  being 
purified  so  that  we  live  in  the  exercise  of  a  good  conscience :  or, 
as  Paul  says,  "  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience."  Saith  Christ, 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  That  is :  we  must  not  only 
be  purified  with  baptismal  water,  but  we  must  be  purified  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Here  baptism  with  water  is  put  first.  Now  in 
these,  and  all  similar  cases,  it  is  clear  that  baptism  is  represented 
as  the  symbol  of  purification  —  or  an  emblem  of  that- holiness 
which  the  Gospel  requires,  and  significant  of  that  sanctifying  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  without  which  no  one  can  see  the  kingdom 
of  God.  Again,  (Isa.  44:  3)  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  "I  will 
pour  water  upon  hira  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground  ;  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing 
upon  thine  offspring."  So  again,  (Ez.  36  :  25  —  27)  "  Then  will 
I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean,  —  a  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  Spirit  will  I  put  within  you, 
and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will 
give  you  an  heart  of  flesh  ;  and  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you," 
(fcc.  In  each  of  these  passages  baptism  with  water,  and  baptism 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  are  so  connected,  and  the  one  is  so  evident- 
ly put  for  the  other  ;  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  one  is  a  sym- 
bol of  the  other.  These  two  passages  are  predictions  of  what 
should  take  place  under  the  Gospel  dispensation.  (See  Henry, 
Scott,  and  all  other  judicious  commentators.)  Of  course  they 
are  directly  in  point,  and  show  the  mind  of  the  Lord  on  this  sub- 
ject. So  again  :  (Matt  3:11,)  "I  indeed,"  saith  John,  "bap- 
tize you  with  water  —  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
&.C."  And  saith  Luke,  (Acts  1  :  5,)  "  John  truly  baptized  with 
water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many 
days  hence,"  and  (2  :  38,)  "  Be  baptized,  every  one  of  you  — 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  again 
baptism  with  water  is  evidently  represented  as  a  symbol  of  bap- 
tism or  purification  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Moreover,  what  were  all  the  ablutions  and  sprinklings  of  the 
ritual  law  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  designed  to  signify  and 
prefigure?  Purification,  most  obviously.  The  rites  of  that 
dispensation  were  divided  into  two  great  classes  ;  those  which 
were  significant  of  atonement  for  sin,  and  those  which  were  sig- 
nificant of  the  purification  of  the  heart.     Those  which  were  sig- 


MODE    OF    BATPISM.  17 

nificant  of  purification,  as  Paul  says,  were  performed  by  sprink- 
ling the  unclean.  So  under  the  Christiiui  dispensation  ;  the  two 
standing  rites  or  ordinances  are  the  Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism  — 
the  one  significant  of  atonement  for  sin  by  the  blood  of  Christ, 
the  other  significant  of  the  purifying  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.*  Nothing  can  be  more  appropriate  than  these  ordi- 
nances. We  need  an  atonement  and  purification  that  we  may 
find  acceptance  with  God.  The  one  is  tlic  work  of  .Tesus  Christ, 
set  forth  in  the  Supper  —  tlie  other  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
set  forth  in  Baptism.  The  belief  of  these  truths  spontaneously 
forces  itself  upon  every  unbiased  mind.  That  it  is  the  design 
of  baptism  then  to  represent  or  symbolize  the  purification  of  the 
soul  and  our  ingrafting  into  Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  a  posi- 
tion which  we  believe  is  made  out  and  established  by  proof  that 
cannot  be  set  aside.  What  then,  if  such  be  the  design  of  bap- 
tism, is  the  significant  and  natural  mode  of  performing  this  rite? 
Obviously,  affusion.  Hence  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  al- 
ways spoken  of  in  the  Bible  in  language  like  this :  "  I  will  j)our 
out  my  Spirit  unto  you."  —  "  The  holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
you."  —  "I  will  2^ouT  my  Spirit  on  thy  seed."  "  I  will  'pour  out 
my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  "  The  Spirit  shall  come  doivn  like 
rain  upon  the  mown  grass."  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions." Now  the  Bible  calls  (his  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which  water  is  the  visible 
sign.  So  Christ  promises  his  disciples,  (Acts  1 :  5,)  "  Ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  And  then 
he  describes  this  baptism  as  (v.  8)  "  the  Holy  Ghost  coining  upion 
them."  It  is  evident  therefore  that  the  Prophets,  and  Apostles, 
and  Jesus  Christ  understand  the  poiiring  out  of  the  Spirit  and 
the  hajjtism  of  the  Spirit  as  synonymous.  Hence  applying  the 
water  in  baptism  by  affusion,  is  a  proper,  not  to  say  the  most 
proper  and  significant  mode.  And  how  do  the  advocates  of  ex- 
clusive immersion  attempt  to  answer  this  argument  ?  Some  of 
them  tell  us  that  to  talk  about  being  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  at  the  present  day,  is  to  use  language  without  meaning  — 
and  sometimes  they  insist  that  none  were  ever  baptized  with  the 

*  Says  Calvin,  (see  Inst.  Christ.  Relig.  Book  4,  Chap.  15,  Sec.  2,  and  Chap.  14, 
Sec.  22,)  "  Baptism  promises  us  no  other  purification  than  by  the  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  Christ,  which  is  emblematically  represented  by  water."  "  Baptism 
testifies  to  us  our  purgation  and  ablution  —  the  Supper  testifies  our  redemption. 
Water  is  a  figure  of  ablution,  and  blood  of  satisfaction." 

3 


18 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


Holy  Ghost  except  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  But  what  does  Paul 
say  ?  "  By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether 
we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles." 

Paul  therefore  settles  tlie  point  that  all  who  are  horn  of  the 
Spirit,  are  baptized  by  the  Spirit ;  —  and  Paul  never  used  words 
without  meaning.  We  must  submit  to  his  decision.  Christians 
generally  have  submitted  to  it  —  and  they  have  long  been  pray- 
ing and  praying,  and  they  will  pray  and  pray,  (ill  the  end  of 
time,  that  all  nations,  kindred,  tongues  and  people  may  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost  into  one  body.  Hence  the  design  of 
baptism  requires  affusion  as  the  mode  of  administering  the  or- 
dinance. It  is  on  this  point,  we  believe,  the  error  of  the  advocates 
of  immersion  mainly  rests.  They  seem  to  have  mistaken  totally 
the  design  of  water  baptism  by  referring  it  to  the  burial  and  res- 
urrectio7i  of  Christ.  All  Scripture  analogy  is  against  such  refer- 
ence ;  —  the  nature  of  the  thing  is  against  it.  Water,  as  exhibited 
in  washing,  sprinkling, &c.,  is  never  an  emblem  of  death  and  the 
grave.  This  is  so  plain  a  matter,  we  believe  the  advocates  of 
immersion  never  would  have  fallen  into  a  mistake  so  palpable,  if 
there  were  sound  arguments  upon  which  they  could  rest  their 
exclusive  views.  Let  them  admit,  what  cannot  be  denied,  that 
it  is  the  design  of  baptism  to  represent  the  purification  of  the  soul 
by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  it  follows,  that  baptism  by  affusion  is 
an  appropriate  mode  of  gospel  baptism.* 

*  To  show  that  the  above  views  are  not  novel,  I  refer  to  a  few,  of  many  au- 
thorities. From  the  "  Harmony  of  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches  of 
Europe,  published  at  London,  1643,"  a  work  of  standard  authority,  now  lying 
before  me,  it  appears  (p.  287)  that  the  Helvetian  church  hold  that"  inwardly  we 
are  regenerated  and  purified  of  God  through  the  Holy  i^pirit;  and  outwardly  we 
receive  the  sealing  of  most  notable  gifts  by  water."  So  the  Bohemian  church 
hold  (p.  290)  that  "  Baptism  consists  of  an  outward  washing  with  water,  used 
both  to  signify  and  to  witness  a  spiritual  washing  and  inward  cleansing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  from  the  disease  of  sin."  So  the  French  church  (at  that  time  one  of  the 
purest  churches  on  earth)  holds  (p.  292)  that  "Baptism  testifies  our  adoption,  be- 
cause that  therein  we  are  ingrafted  into  Christ's  body,  that  being  washed  in  his 
blood,  we  may  also  be  renewed  to  holiness  of  life  by  his  Spirit."  So  the  Belgi- 
an church  holds  (p.  293)  that  "  Baptism  signifies  that  the  blood  of  Christ  doth 
internally,  through  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  perform  and  effect  that  in  the  soul, 
which  water  dotli  externally  work  in  the  body."  So  the  Suevcland  church  holds 
(p.  301)  that  "  Baptism  is  a  token  of  the  renewing  of  the  Spirit."  In  later 
times,  says  Dwight,  (V^ol.  V.  p.  342,)  "  The  conclusion  stands  on  solid  ground, 
that  baptism  is,  in  the  Scriptures,  instituted  as  a  symbol  of  the  allusion  of  the 
Spirit  upon  the  soul  in  regeneration,  and  the  cleansing  of  its  sins  by  the  blood  of 
Christ."  i'rofessor  Stuart,  and  a  multitude  of  other  authors,  and  nearly  the 
whole  Protestant  world,  correspond  with  these  views. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  19 

In  proof  of  our  position  that  affusion  is  a  valid  gospel  mode  of 
baptism,  we  urge 

II.  The  MEANING  of  the  word  always  used  in  the  Bible  to 
designate  this  ordinance.  This  word  in  Greek  is  baptizo. 
Baptizo,  with  its  derivatives,  is  the  word  always  used  by  the 
sacred  writers,  when  they  speak  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 
This  all  admit.  It  is  admitted  also  by  all,  that  the  controversy 
about  the  mode  of  baptism  depends  very  materially  on  the  mean- 
ing of  this  Greek  word.    What  then  is  the  meaning  of  Baptizo  ?  * 

We  will  first  consider  the  definition  of  this  word  by  Lexicog- 
raphers and  eminent  Greek  scholars  —  and  then  examine  its 
use  both  by  profane  and  sacred  writers.  For  the  sake  of  those 
who  are  unacquainted  with  the  manner  in  which  Greek  words 
are  varied  in  their  terminations,  I  shall  generally  use  the  verb 
Baptizo  in  the  first  person  of  the  indicative  present,  and  the 
noun  Baptismos  in  the  nominative  singular. 

Schrevelius,  that  great  master  and  critic  of  the  Greek  tongue, 
whose  Lexicon  has  been  a  standard  work  for  nearly  two  centu- 
ries, gives  four  definitions  of  baptizo,  to  wit ;  {baptizo,  tnergo, 
abhw,  lavo,)  to  baptize ;  to  immerse  ;  to  wash  ;  to  sprinkle, 
moisten  or  wet.  Only  one  of  these  four  definitions  denotes 
exclusive  immersion.  The  other  three,  especially  two  of  them, 
denote  the  application  of  water  in  other  modes  than  immersion. 

Schleusner,  in  his  accurate  Lexicon  on  the  New  Testament, 
a  work  of  undisputed  authority,  defines  baptizo,  1,  to  immerse 
in  water ;  2,  to  wash,  sprinkle,  or  cleanse  with  water,  {abhw, 
lavo,  aqua  purgo  ;)  3,  to  baptize  ;  4,  to  pour  out  largely,  {pro- 
funda largiter,  cj'c.)  Only  one  of  Schleusner's  definitions 
restricts  the  meaning  to  immersion.  Three  of  them  denote  the 
application  of  the  fluid  by  affusion. 

Scapula,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  baptizo,  immerse,  wash, 
sprinkle,  {mergo,  abluo,  lavo.) 

Iledericus,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  baptizo,  immerse,  wash, 
sprinkle,  {immergo,  abluo,  lavo.) 

Parkhurst,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  baptizo,  to  immerse  in,  or 
wash  with  water,  in  token  of  purification  from  sin. 

Ainsworth,  (English  Latin  Dictionary,)  defines  it,  to  wash 
any  one  in  the  sacred  baptismal  font ;  or  to  sprinkle  {inspergere) 
on  him  the  consecrated  water. 

*  See  Appendix.   [Note  C] 


20  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Leigh,  see  his  Lexicon,  i.  e.  Critica  Sacra,  defines  baptizo, 
"a  kind  of  washing,  as  by  plunging;  and  yet  it  is  taken  more 
largely  for  any  kind  of  washing,  where  there  is  no  dipping 
at  all." 

Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  Philadelphia  Edition,  defines  it  to 
dip  or  tinge. 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible  defines  it,  to  sprinkle  or  wash  one's 
body  sacraraentally. 

Buck,  see  his  Dictionary,  says,  "  its  radical  proper  and  prima- 
ry meaning  is  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  wet  or  the  like  ;  which  primary 
design  is  affected  by  different  modes  of  application." 

Cole,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  baptizo,  to  baptize,  to  wash,  to 
sprinkle. 

Passor,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  it  to  immerse,  wash,  sprinkle. 
Stephanns,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  it,  immerse,  wash,  cleanse ; 
{mergo,  abluo,  lavo*) 

Suidas,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  it,  immerse,  moisten,  sprinkle, 
wash,  purge,  cleanse  ;  {mergo,  madefacio,  lavo,  abluo,  purgo, 
mundo.) 

Coulon,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  it,  by  immersion,  washing, 
sprinkling,  or  wetting ;  [mersione,  ahlutione,  et  asper'sione.) 

Wahl,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  it ;  first,  to  wash,  to  perform 
ablution,  to  cleasne;  secondly,  to  immerse,  to  administer  the  rite 
of  baptism.! 

Greenfield,  see  his  Lexicon,  defines  baptizo  as  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  to  cleanse,  to 
immerse,  to  overwhelm,  to  administer  the  rite  of  baptism. t 

Here  we  have  the  definitions  of  the  most  eminentliexicographers 
the  world  has  ever  seen  ;  no  one  of  whom  defines  baptizo  to 
signify  nothing  but  immersion.  They  all  affirm  that  it  signifies 
AFFUSION  as  well  as  immersion.  And  there  is  no  Lexicon  with- 
in my  knowledge,  that  says  it  means  nothing  but  immersion. 

Here  we  have  the  definition  of  baptizo,  by  standard  Lexico- 
graphers. Let  us  next  examine  what  learned  Greek  critics  have 
said  of  it. 

Piscator  says,  "  Baptizo  signifies  not  only  to  be  dipped,  but 

*  p.  p.  23.  For  jnany  valiinblo  quotations,  I  am  indebted  to  "  I'ond's  Trea- 
tise on  Christian  Baptism."  These  quotations  will  be  inark('d  vvilh  tiie  let- 
ter P. 

t  P.  p.    24. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


21 


also  in  any  other  way  to  be  tinged,  washed  or  rinsed  ;  {lavari, 
et  ahlui*) 

Zelenus  says,  "  Baptism  signifies  dipping  and  also  sprinkling.t 

Walker  says,  chap.  3,  (his  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  printed  at 
London,  1678,  now  lies  before  me,)  "  I  find  nine  Latin  words 
used  to  express  the  import  of  baptizo,  to  wit :  mergo,  immergo, 
iingo,  iiiilngo,  lavo,  abhio,  niadefacio,  jmrgo,  mundoP  To 
immerse,  to  plunge,  to  tinge,  to  color,  to  sprinkle,  to  wash,  to 
moisten,  to  purge,  to  cleanse. 

Zanchius  says,  "  Baptizo  doth  as  well  signify  to  dye,  and 
simply  to  sprinkle  {lavare)  as  to  immerse."t 

Bucanus  says,  "  Baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  to  tinge,  to  wash, 
{ahluere.y^h 

Maldonet  says,  "  With  the  Greeks  Baptizo  signifies  to  dip, 
to  wash,  to  wash  oft,  [lavare^  ahluere,)  and  as  Tertullian  uses 
to  turn  it,  to  tinge,  wet  or  dye."|| 

Bonaventure  says,  "  Baptizo  in  Greek  signifies  as  much  as 
Lavo  in  Latin  ;  i.  e.  to  wash  or  sprinkle. "T 

Peter  Martyr  says,  "  Baptizo  signifies  not  only  to  dip,  but  in 
any  way  to  tinge  or  wet."** 

Whitaker  says,  "  The  word  Baptizo  signifies  not  only  to  im- 
merse, but  also  to  tinge  or  wet."tt 

Vorrilong  says,  "  Baptizo  in  Greek,  is  the  same  that  lavo  is 
in  Latin.  Properly  speaking,  it  signifies  nothing  [nisi  lotionein) 
except  washing."+t 

Alstedius  says,  "  The  terra  baptism  signifies  both  immersion 
and  sprinkling,  [aspersionem)  and  of  consequence  ablution. §§ 

Mastricht  says,  "  Baptism  signifies  washing,  either  by  sprink- 
ling or  dipping."lll| 

Tertullian,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  within  100  years 
of  the  Apostles,  an  eminent  man,  says  "  that  baptizo  means  not 

*Com.  Loc.  de  Baptismo.   pp.  157,  158. 

t  Wail,  Hist.  In.  Bap.  Part  II.  Chap.  9.  %  Cultu.  Dei.  Lib.  1.  Chap.  16. 

§  Loc.  Com.  47,  p.  605.  II  Matt.  28  :   19. 

IF  Walker's  Doc.  Bap.  Chap.  3.  As  Lavo,  to  sprinkle,  is  one  of  the  uniform 
definitions  of  Baptizo;  some  of  the  advocates  of  immersion  have  recently  urged 
that  Foster,  one  of  their  own  number,  says  "Lavo  is  only  a  distant  and  conse- 
quential meaning  of  Baptizo;"  as  though  the  opinion  of  Foster  would  set  aside  the 
established  meaning  of  this  troublesome  word. 

**  In  Rom.  Chap.  10.  ft  Reed's  Apol.  p.  114. 

tt  P.  Works,  Lil).  IV.  §§  P.     Encyclopedia  Lib.  25,  Sec.  3.  Loc.  40. 

nil  Wall,  Part  2.  Chap.  9. 


22  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

only  to  immerse,  but  also  to  pour,  {mergere  non  tantum,  sed  et 
fj  erf  under  e.y^*  He  defines  baptizo  also  by  the  Latin  word 
tingo,  which  the  best  Latin  Dictionaries  define  to  dye,  color, 
stain,  sprinkle,  imbue,  &c. 

Parseus  says,  "  Baptism,  with  the  Greeks,  imports  any 
washing  or  cleansing,  whether  it  be  done  by  dipping  or  sprink- 
ling."t 

Ursinus  renders  "  Baptismos,  washing  as  well  as  dipping.? 

Trelactius  says,  "  Baptism,  according  to  the  etymology  of  it, 
signifies  commonly  any  kind  of  ablution  or  cleansing."§ 

WoUedius  says,  "Baptism  signifies  dipping  and  sprinkUng,  and 
by  consequence  ablution  or  cleansing  by  washing." II 

Peter  Lombard  says,  "  Baptism  signifies  intinction,  i.  e.  a  wash- 
ing of  the  body  ;  {ablutio.y^ 

Daneeus  says,  "  Baptism  signifies  not  only  immersion,  but 
also  lotion  and  ablution  ;  and  not  only  are  they  baptized  who 
are  wholly  dipped  in  water,  but  they  that  are  tinged  or  wetted 
with  water."** 

Thomas  Aquinas  says,  "  Baptism  may  be  given  not  only  by 
immersion,  but  also  by  affusion  of  water,  or  sprinkling  with 
it."tt 

Fealty  says,  "  Christ  nowhere  requireth  dipping,  but  only 
baptizing ;  which  word  Hesychius,  Stephanus,  Scapula,  and 
BuddtEUs,  those  great  masters  of  the  Greek  tongue,  make  good 
by  very  many  instances  out  of  the  classic  writers,  importeth  no 
more  than  ablution  or  washing."+t 

Calvin  says,  "  Whether  the  person  baptized  be  wholly  im- 
mersed, and  whether  thrice  or  not,  or  whether  water  be  only 
poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no  importance."§§ 

Beza  says,  "  They  are  rightly  baptized  who  are  baptized  by 
sprinkling."!!!! 

Wall  says,  "  The  word  Baptizo  in  Scripture  signifies  to  wash 
in  general,  without  determining  the  sense  to  this  or  that  sort  of 

*  De  Anima.  Cap.  10.  t  In  Ileb.  9  :  10. 

X  p.  26,  Explic.  Catech.  Quea.  69.  §  Insti.  Lib.  2,  Cap.  de  Baptismo. 

II  Chris.  Theol.  Lib.  I.  Chap.  23.  IT  Waliver's  Doc.  Bap.  Cap.  6. 
**  P.  26.  Responsio  ad  Beilarin.      Tom.  de  Sacram.  Cap.  1. 

tt  Wall,  His.  In.  Bap.  Part  II.  Chap.  9,  p.  466.  See  also  the  Works  of 
Aquinas  printed  at  Venice  in  1483. 

tt  Leigh,  Critica  Sacra.  §§  Institu.  Vol.  3,  p.  343. 
Illl  Tract  Theol.  Vol.  III.  p.  195. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  23 

washing."  And  "  to  baptize  is  a  word  applied  in  Scripture,  not 
only  to  such  washing,  as  is  by  dipping  into  the  wafer  the  thing 
or  person  washed  ;  but  also  to  such  as  is  by  pouring  or  rubbing 
water  on  the  thing  or  person  washed,  or  some  part  of  it.'"* 

Owen  says,  "  Baptism  is  any  kind  of  washing,  whether  by 
dipping  or  sprinkling."t 

Flavel  says,  "  The  word  baptize  signifies  as  well  to  wash  as  to 
plunge.     A  person  may  be  truly  baptized  who  is  not  plunged."t 

Tilenus  says,  "If  we  regard  the  etymology  of  the  word  bap- 
tism, it  signifies  dipping  and  also  sprinkling. "§ 

Kecherman  says,  "Baptism  signifies  either  immersion, or  wash- 
ing, or  pouring  [perfusionern.y^W 

Doederlain  says,  "  The  power  of  the  word  baptizo  is  expressed 
in  washing  or  performing  ablution,  {in  lavando,  ahluendo)  on 
which  account  we  read  of  the  baptism  of  cups,  pots,  tables,  (fee. 
Mark  7  — 8.n 

Morus  says,  "  To  baptize  is  in  a  solemn  manner  to  immerse 
one  in  water,  or  to  pour  water  upon  him."** 

Lightfoot  says,  "  The  word  baptism  does  not  always  denote 
immersion,  but  sometimes  washing  only,  or  even  sprinkling."tt 

Cogswell  says,  "  Baptizo  signifies  to  wet  with  water  partially 
as  well  as  totally,  and  by  sprinkling  as  well  as  by  immersion. 
The  words  immerse  and  immersion  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible."tt 

J.  Wickliffe  says,  "  Nor  is  it  material  whether  persons  are 
dipped  once  or  three  times,  or  whether  water  is  poured  upon  their 
head."§§ 

Lynwood  says,  "  Dipping  is  not  to  be  accounted  of  the  essence 
of  baptism,  but  it  may  be  given  also  by  pouring  or  sprinkhng."§§ 

Musculus  says,  "  It  is  free  for  the  church  to  baptize  either  by 
dipping  or  sprinkling."||i| 

The  Westminister  Assembly  affirm  that  "  Baptism  is  rightly 
administered,  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  upon  the  person.''^ 

*  His.  In.  Bap.  Part  II.   Chap.  8,  p.  433. 

t  Com.  lieb.  IX:  10,  p.  572.  t  Works,  Vol.  2.  p.  432. 

§  Disput.   de  Baptismo,  p.  8S.3.  II  Theol.  Sys.  Disp.  37. 

IT  Institut.  Theol.  Chris.  Vol.  II.  p.  748. 

**  P.  p.  29,  Commentaries  Ex.  His.  Vol.  II.  p.  491. 

tt  Reed's  Apo.  p.  114.  %%  Theol.  Class  Book,  p.  166. 

§§  Wall's  His.  In  Bap.  Part  II.  Chap.  9,  p.  469. 

nil  Wall,  p.  471.  inr  Vid.  Cat. 


24 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


Dr.  Doddridge,  who  had  strong  partialities  for  immersion,  says, 
that  "  Baptizo  may  signify  any  method  of  washing,  and  is  some- 
times used  in  Scripture  for  washing  tilings  which  were  not  dipped 
in  water,  but  on  which  it  was  poured  :  as  Luke  11  :  38  ;  Mark 
7 :  4."* 

Adam  Clarke  says,  "  Baptizo,  it  is  certain,  means  both  to  dip 
and  to  sprinkle."t 

Pool  says,  "  Baptizo  does  not  always  denote  immersion,  but 
sometimes  washing  only,  or  even  sprinkling. "+ 

Barnes  says,  "  Baptizo  signified  originally  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to 
stain."  He  says,  "  It  cannot  be  proved  from  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  that  the  idea  of  a  complete  immersion  ever  was  con- 
nected with  the  word,  or  that  it  ever  in  any  case  occurred. "§ 

Prof.  Stuart,  after  a  full  examination  of  the  meaning  of  Bap- 
tizo, saysj  "I  do  consider  it  quite  plain,  that  none  of  the  circum- 
stantial evidence  "  [in  the  Bible]  "  proves  immersion  to  have  been 
exclusively  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  or  even  that  of  John. 
Indeed  I  consider  this  point  so  far  made  out,  that  I  can  hardly 
suppress  the  conviction,  that  if  any  one  maintains  the  contrary, 
it  must  be  either  because  he  is  unable  rightly  to  estimate  the  na- 
ture or  power  of  the  Greek  language  ;  or  because  he  is  influenced 
in  some  measure  by  party  feeling  ;  or  else  because  he  has  looked 
at  the  subject  in  only  a  partial  manner,  without  examining  it  fully 
and  thoroughly. "II 

President  Dwight,  that  most  acute  Greek  scholar,  says,  "  I 
have  examined  almost  one  hundred  instances  in  which  the  word 
baptizo  and  its  derivatives  are  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
four  in  the  Septuagint,  and  to  my  apprehension  it  is  evident  that 
the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo  is  clcatising." 
Again,  says  he,  "  according  to  the  great  body  of  learned  critics 
and  Lexicographers,  Baptizo  means  originally  to  tinge,  stain, 
dye,  or  color;  and  when  it  means  immersion,  it  is  only  in  a  sec- 
ondary and  occasional  sense."  He  says  that  "  tinge,  dye,  stain 
or  color  was  the  original,  classical  meaning  of  the  word  ;  and  in 
many  instances,  it  cannot  be  made,  without  obvious  impropriety, 
to  signify  immersion  ;  and  in  others,  it  cannot  signify  it  at  all.-'IF 

Clarke,  that   learned  biblical   critic   affirms ;  "  To   say    that 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  376.  t  Com.  on  Matt.  3:  6. 

t  Synop.  on  Mark.  §  Com.  on  Matt.  3:  6. 

II    liibli.  Ileposi.  pp.  337,  338.  IT  Theol.  Vol.  V.  p.  331. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  25 

sprinkling  is  no  gospel  baptism  is  as  incorrect  as  to  say  immer- 
sion is  none.  Such  assertions  are  as  unchristian  as  they  are  un- 
charitable. Those  who  are  clipped  in  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  I  believe  to  be  baptized.  Those  who  are  washed  or 
sprinkled  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  I  believe  to  be 
equally  so ;  and  the  repetition  of  such  baptism  I  beheve  to  be 
proftine."* 

Lathrop  says,  "In  the  New  Testament  we  find  clear  and 
direct  evidence,  that  the  word  baptizo  signifies  to  pour  and 
sprinkle."! 

Hemmenway  says,  "  Washing  or  wetting  is  the  first  and  orig- 
inal import  of  baptism. "+ 

I  need  not  proceed  in  these  quotations.  This  list  might  be 
greatly  enlarged  with  such  names  as  Luther,  Melancthon,  Wit- 
sius.  Walker,  Henry,  Hopkins,  Sweet,  Edwards,  Vossius,  Reed, 
Worcester,  and  many  other  Greek  scholars  of  the  first  eminence, 
who  have  shown  that  baptizo  signifies  affusioji  as  well  as  immer- 
sion ;  but  I  have  no  time  to  quote  further.  I  have  now  given 
you  the  opinion  of  sixty  eminent  men,  and  distinguished  Greek 
scholars.  Lexicographers,  Critics,  and  Theologians  ;  men  who 
have  lived  during  seventeen  centuries — -and  with  united  voice 
they  declare  positively  and  explicitly  that  the  original^  primitive 
meaning  of  baptizo  is  affusion  as  well  as  immersion.  The  tes- 
timony of  these  men  will  certainly  have  weight  with  all  unbias- 
ed minds,  and  must  settle  the  question  before  us.§ 

*  Com.  Mark  16;  et  ^fatt.  3:  6.  t  Dis.  Chris.  Bap.  p.  15. 

t  Reed's  Apol.  p.  121. 

§  How  do  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  meet  all  this  testimony?  I 
answer:  they  affirm  that  baptizo  means  immersion.  Let  us  examine  some  of 
their  witnesses.  They  quote  Beza  to  testify  that  "  Baptizo  signifies  immersion." 
This  is  true;  but  not  the  whole  truth.  Beza  says,  "  Baptizo  signifies  immersion;" 
but  he  adds,  "  they  are  rightly  baptized  who  are  baptized  by  sprinkling."  So 
they  quote  Calvin  to  say  "  that  Baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  and  i£  is  certain  that 
immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church."  This  is  true.  But  in  the 
same  sentence,  (see  Institutes, Book  4,  Chap.  15,  Section  19:)  he  says,  "  Wheth- 
er the  person  who  is  baptized  be  wholly  immersed,  and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or 
whether  water  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him  is  of  no  importance." 
Calvin  never  says  that  Baptizo  means  nothing  but  immersion;  nor,  that  immer- 
sion was  the  only  mode  practiced  by  the  ancient  church.  Again,  they  quote 
Leigh  to  say  "  that  Baptizo  signifies  plunging."  This  is  true;  but  not  the  whole 
truth.  Leigh  adds,  (his  Criticci  Sacra  lies  before  me)  "yet  baptizo  is  taken 
more  largely  for  any  kind  of  washing,  where  there  is  no  dipping  at  all."  This  is  a 
specimen  of  quotations  by  their  standard  authors. 

4 


26  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Having  seen  what  Lexicopraghers,  Critics,  and  Theologians 
affirm ;  we  will  now  examine  the  import  of  baptizo  as  used  by 
ancient  Greek  writers. 

Plutarch,  who  was  born  in  Greece  and  died  about  year  A.  D. 
140 ;  in  his  life  of  Theseus,  quoting  the  SibylUne  verse  concern- 
ing the  city  of  Athens,  says,  "  Thou  mayest  be  baptized,  O  bladder, 
but  it  is  not  permitted  to  thee  to  go  under  the  water."  {Aschos 
baptize,  de  toi  tliemis  estL)*  Plutarch  here  uses  baptizo  to 
denote  a  partial  wetting. 

Another  way  in  which  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  meet  our  testimo- 
ny is,  by  affirming  that  Paxlobaptist  authors  admit  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse. 
This  is  true;  we  do  admit  it  signifies  to  immerse.  But  it  signifies  also  to  pour,  to 
wash,  to  sprinkle.      And  this  is  the  universal  testimony  of  Psedobaptists. 

Again;  they  assert,  that  if  baptizo  signifies  pouring,  it  must  always  signify 
pouring;  and  then  they  substitute  baptize  for  jjowr  in  such  passages  as  these:  "bap- 
tize the  blood  of  the  bullock,"  —  "baptize  out  dust,"  &c.;  just  as  though,  be- 
cause one  signification  of  baptize  is  to  pour,  therefore,  it  must  always  be  used  to 
signify  pour.      Really;   this  is  a  mere  subterfuge. 

Agam;  they  say,  "  Had  baptizo  been  translated  immersion,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, there  would  have  been  no  dispute  about  its  meaning."  I  reply:  had  bap- 
tizo been  translated  affusion,  would  there  have  been  any  dispute  about  its 
meaning? 

Again;  they  sometimes  say  that  baptizo  has  but  one  meaning,  and  that  this  is 
immersion.  I  reply:  no  man  acquainted  with  the  use  of  language  will  attempt 
to  defend  this  position.  Every  Lexicon,  in  every  language  on  earth,  will  contra- 
dict and  overthrow  it.  Most  words  have  one  generic  meaning  truly;  but  their 
specific  meanings  are  numerous,  often  twenty,  thirty,  fifty.  Nearly  every  im- 
portant word  has  several  meanings.  In  the  Hebrew,  the  same  word  sometimes 
has  meanings  directly  opposite  to  each  other.  This  is  true  to  some  extent  of  the 
Greek,  Latin  and  English  —  probably  of  all  languages.  The  specific  meaning  of 
a  word  in  a  given  location,  must  be  learned  from  the  connection  in  which  it  is 
used.  Take  the  word  travel.  The  generic  meaning  is,  to  pass  from  one  place 
to  another.  But  the  use  of  this  word,  does  not  designate  the  mode  of  perform- 
ing the  act.  Whether  it  be  by  walking  —  on  horseback  —  by  stage  —  by 
steamboat,  or  some  other  mode,  must  be  learned  from  the  connection  in  which 
the  word  ia  used.  Suppose  a  philologist  should  assert  that  travel  has  but  one 
meaning  —  t^at  it  means  nothing  but  to  ride  on  horseback;  how  long  could  he 
sustain  his  credit  among  sensible  men?  Apply  these  remarks  to  the  words  print 
—  jmt  —  spin  —  jTo  —  determine,  and  a  thousand  others.  Apply  them  to  bap- 
tizo; baptizo  signifies  the  application  of  water  or  other  fluid  to  a  person  or  thing; 
but  the  quantitif  to  be  applied — or  the  mode  of  application  is  not  designated. 
These  must  be  learned  by  the  connection  and  circumstances  in  which  the  word 
is  used.  To  say  that  baptizo  means  nothing  but  immersion  —  and  this,  on  the 
supposition  that  words  have  but  one  meaning,  is  to  contradict  all  usage,  and  all 
analogy  —  and  if  the  principle  were  carried  out,  it  would  well  nigh  destroy  the 
beauty  and  copiousness  of  all  language.  These  methods  of  meeting  our  argu>- 
ment — far  from  overturning —  confirm  it,  and  show  that  it  is  impregnable. 

*  See  Pond,  p.  30. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  27 

So  in  Judith,  (12:7,)  written  several  hundred  years  before 
Christ,  it  is  said,  Judith  went  out  "  in  the  niglit  and  baptizetl 
{ebaptizeto)  herself  in  tlic  camp,  by  or  at  the  fountain  of  water." 
The  circumstances  of  this  case,  forbid  the  idea  that  Judith  plunged 
herself  into  the  fountain.  She  washed  herself  in  the  midst  of 
the  camp  bi/  or  at  the  fountain  ;  and  this  washing  is  called  bap- 
tism. 

So  TertuUlan,  who  lived  within  100  years  of  the  Apostles, 
speaking  of  a  man  who  had  been  baptized,  says,  "  Who  will  ac- 
commodate you,  a  man  whose  penitence  is  so  little  to  be  trusted 
with  one  sprinkling  of  w^ater  ?  [aspergineni  imam  aque.y^ 
This  shows,  both  what  was  the  opinion  of  Tertullian.  and  also 
that  sprinkling  was  a  mode  of  baptism  then  practiced. 

Origen,  a  celebrated  Greek  writer,  born  within  one  hundred 
years  of  the  Apostolic  age,  who  suffered  martyrdom  at  69  years 
of  age,  "  represents  the  wood  on  the  altar,  over  which  water  was 
poured  at  the  command  of  Elijah,  (1  Kings  18  :  33,)  as  having 
been  baptized,"  {baptizo.)\  This  baptism  was  performed  by 
pouring  —  this  none  can  doubt.  And  thus  we  have  the  opinion 
and  usage  of  Origen,  that  baptizo  means  affusion. 

Lactantius,  a  noted  Christian,  born  in  the  third  century,  says 
Christ  received  baptism,  "  that  he  might  save  the  Gentiles  by 
baptism,  that  is,  by  the  distilling  of  the  purifying  dew  :  {purifi- 
ci  roris  perfusio7ie.)"l  The  water  of  baptism  is  here  repre- 
sented as  falling  like  the  dew.  Can  anything  be  more  ex- 
pressive ? 

Cyprian,  a  distinguished  martyr  of  the  Christian  church,  who 
lived  within  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  of  the  Apostles, 
understood  the  prediction  in  Ezckicl  36  :  25 ;  "I  will  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean,"  as  having  reference 
to  Christian  baptism. §  Jerome,  and  other  distinguished  fatliers  of 
that  age,  were  of  the  same  opinion. 

Clemens  Alexandvinus,  who  lived  within  fifty  years  of  the 
Apostles,  says  of  a  backslider  whom  the  Apostle  John  was  the 
means  of  reclaiming,  ''  He  was  baptized  a  second  time,  with 
tears;  "  a  most  emphatic  expression  to  show  that  baptizo  means 
affusion.W 

*   P.  p.  33.    De  pa-nitit.  Cap.  6.  t   Wall,  part.  2. 

t  Opera  Lib.  4,  Cap.  15.  §  Wall's  UU.  In.  Bap.  Part  11.  Chap.  9,  p.  464. 

II  Eu.sebius  Eccl.  His.  Lib.  IIL  Cap.  20.  Edition  of  1672,  which  now  lies 
before  me. 


28  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Athanasius,  another  of  the  early  fathers,  who  suffered  severe 
trials,  and  was  finally  a  martyr,  speaks  "  of  the  baptism  of 
iears.'^* 

Gregory,  another  father,  says,  "  I  know  of  a  fourth  baptism, 
that  by  martyrdom  and  blood;  and  I  know  of  a  fifth,  that  of 
/ear*."* 

Basil,  another  father,  says  of  a  martyr,  "  He  was  baptized  with 
his  otvn  blood.''^* 

The  author  of  the  Responses  to  Antiochus,  (attributed  to  Atha- 
nasius,) says,  "  God  hath  granted  unto  man  three  purging  bap- 
tisms ;  that  of  water,  that  of  the  testimony  of  one's  own  blood, 
and  that  of  tears."t 

Wall,  (Part  II,  Chap.  6,  pp.  359,  360  and  elsewhere,)  shows 
that  to  speak  of  bapiism  with  tears  and  blood,  was  common  and 
favorite  phraseology  with  the  early  Christians.  It  is  plain  that 
they  used  this  language,  (whether  understood  literally  or  figura- 
tively,) to  denote  an  affusion  with  tears  and  blood  ;  hence  it  is 
certain  they  understood  baptizo  to  signify  affusion. 

These  testimonies,  (many  others  might  be  added,)  show  beyond 
all  dispute,  that  the  Greek  writers,  fathers,  and  martyrs,  both 
before  Christ,  and  in  the  Apostolic  and  subsequent  ages,  under- 
stood and  used  baptizo  to  signify  affusion.  We  have  now  ex- 
amined the  meaning  of  baptizo,  at  some  length,  by  citing  nume- 
rous standard  authorities,  and  by  tracing  its  general  use  among 
early  and  learned  Greek  wniters.  The  conclusion  is  irresistible 
and  certain,  that  baptizo,  with  its  derivatives,  does  signify  affusion 
as  well  as  immersion.  This  conclusion  places  the  views  of  the 
mode  of  baptism  we  advocate  upon  an  immovable  basis. 

But  the  most  satisfactory  source  of  learning  the  meaning  of 
this  word,  is  the  Bible.  In  what  sense  is  baptizo  used  by  the 
sacred  writers  ?  If  they  use  it  to  signify  affusion,  i.  e.  sprink- 
ling or  poiiriyig ;  neither  misrepresentation,  nor  confident, 
unsupported  assertions,  nor  ridicule,  can  alter  the  meaning ;  it 
will  stand,  while  the  world  endures. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  as  used  in  the 
Bible.     I  begin 

1.  With  Acts  1 :  5.  Saith  Luke,  "  John  truly  baptized 
{ebaptisen)  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  {baptisthescs- 
the)  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."     Luke  says, 

*  Walker,  Cap.  6.  t  Walker's  Doc.  Bap.  Chap.  6. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  29 

a  few  days  after,  (2  :  2 — 4,)  "And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound 
from  heaven,  as  of  a  mighty  rushing  wind,  and  it  (the  sound) 
filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared 
unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  [the  tongue,  or  Spirit 
signified  thereby]  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues  as 
the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  And  Peter,  one  of  the  Apostles, 
standing  up,  assured  the  multitude  that  this  was  the  very  thing 
foretold  by  the  prophet  Joel ;  to  wit,  "  Saith  God  I  w'lW pour  out 
of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  Now  look  at  these  facts  ;  Luke 
says,  .Tohn  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  loith 
the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence.  He  says,  a  few  days 
after,  the  Holy  Ghost  sat  upon  them,  and  they  were  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost:  and  Peter  affirms  that  this  was  the  very  poicr- 
ing-  out  of  the  Holy  Giiost  spoken  of  by  Joel.  Now  if  Luke 
and  Peter  were  Psedobaptists,  as  no  douljt  they  were,  and  it  was 
their  design  to  show  that  baptizo  means  pouring,  could  they 
have  chosen  stronger  language  ?  The  advocates  of  immersion 
attempt  to  set  aside  the  argument  from  this  passage,  by  asserting 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  filled  the  house  so  full  that  the  disciples 
were  immersed  in  the  Spirit.  But  Luke  says  no  such  thing. 
He  says  the  sound  filled  all  the  house  —  and  that  the  Spirit  sat 
on  each  of  them  ;  and  they  (not  the  house)  were  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  And  this  was  done,  as  Joel  had  foretold  it  would 
be,  by  pouring.  Here  then,  Luke,  Peter  and  Joel  agree  togeth- 
er in  showing  that  one  meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  jyour.  In  this 
case,  there  can  be  no  mistake.  That  Luke  uses  baptizo  to 
signify  pouring  is  proved  as  unanswerably,  as  any  proposition 
can  be  proved.  Some  of  the  advocates  of  immersion  assert, 
indeed,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  figurative  ex- 
pression. To  this  assertion,  I  reply  :  it  is  perfectly  immaterial,  so 
far  as  our  present  inquiry  is  concerned,  whether  this  baptism  be 
literal  or  spiritual.  The  sacred  penmen  in  speaking  of  this 
affusion  of  the  Spirit,  call  it  baptism.  Hence,  in  their  opinion, 
baptizo  signifies  affusion.  The  advocates  of  immersion  may 
talk  about  figurative  language  ;  but  here  the  truth  stands  out 
"  clear  as  the  light,  and  firm  as  th6  pillars  of  heaven." 

2.  Again;  see  Acts  11:  L5,  16,  where  Peter  gives  an  account 
of  his  preaching  to  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  and  of  what  then 
took  place.   Says  he,  "  And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost 


30  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

fell  on  them,  as  on  us,  at  the  beginning.  Then  remembered  I 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized 
with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  {haptisthesesthe)  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.''  That  the  Holy  Ghosi  falling  on  these  converts, 
is  equivalent  to  his  being  poured  upon  them,  is  plain  from  the 
narrative  of  this  same  matter  by  Luke,  who  says,  (10  :  44,  45,) 
"  While  Peter  3^et  spake  these  words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on 
all  them  which  heard  the  word.  And  they  of  the  circumcision 
which  believed,  were  astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter, 
because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Any  plain  man  can  understand  these  words  of 
Peter.  The  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  upon  the  people  there, 
and  Peter  says  he  called  to  mind  that  promise  then  fulfilled  ;  to 
wit,  "  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  If  Peter 
had  said,  baptizo  means  to  pour;  it  would  not  be  stronger  to 
this  point,  than  the  language  he  actually  used.  According  to  the 
Apostle  Peter,  then,  baptizo  means  affusion  or  pouring:  Till  better 
authority  be  produced,  dear  friends,  we  must  bow  to  this.  The 
argument  here  is  perfectly  simple,  and  may  be  examined  by 
any  plain  man,  who  can  read  our  English  Bible.  When  Peter 
here  tells  us  that  he  considers  pouring  to  be  baptism,  all  the 
assertions  and  confidence  of  the  whole  world,  cannot  persuade  us 
against  his  word. 

3.  Again  :  see  Mark,  7:4.  "  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market  except  they  wash  [baptisontai]  they  eat  not."  See  also 
Luke  11  :  38.  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marveled  that 
Chiist  had  not  first  washed  {cbajHisthe)  before  dinner."  Was 
this  washing  before  eating,  (which  Mark  and  Luke  here  call 
baptizing,)  an  immersion  of  the  whole Jjody  in  water ;  or  was  it 
the  washing  of  parts  of  the  body,  (as  the  hands  and  face,)  by 
pouring  or  putting  the  water  upon  them  ?  Plainly,  the  latter. 
Pouring,  or  applying  the  water  by  affusion  in  some  form,  is  the 
common  and  uniform  mode  of  washing.  Moreover;  it  seems 
to  have  been  a  custom  among  the  .Tows  to  have  water  poured 
upon  their  hands,  when  they  washed,  or  as  Mark  and  Luke 
say,  baptized  themselves.  Tliis  word  baptizo,  rendered  wash, 
is  used  here  by  Luke  in  the  passive  voice  ;  which  indicates  that 
the  water  was  applied,  (as  was  probably  customary,)  by  another 
person.  Hence,  (in  2  Kings  3  :  11,)  we  find  this  expression, 
"  Here  is  Elisha  the  son  of  Shaphat,  which  poured  water  on  the 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  31 

hands  of  Elijah."  Wherefore,  in  these  two  passages,  it  is  very 
clear  that  Mark  and  Luke  use  the  word  baptizo  to  signify  affu- 
sion ;  that  is  pouring. 

4.  Again  :  see  Mark  7:4.  "  And  many  other  things  there 
be  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  icasliing  [baptis- 
mous)  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels  and  tables,"  or  couches. 
Was  this  washing,  (which  Mark  calls  baptizing,)  these  articles, 
performed  by  immersing  them,  or  by  pouring  the  water  upon 
them?  What  is  the  common  method '?  Is  it  by  immersion,  or 
by  affusion  ?  Cups  and  pots  may  be  immersed,  though  even 
this  is  rarely  done  in  washing  them  ;  but  in  most  families,  it 
would  be  inconvenient,  and  in  some  impossible,  to  immerse 
brazen  vessels  and  tables  or  couches.  Did  you  ever  know  a 
table  to  be  washed  by  immersion?  And  is  this  the  common 
mode  ?  Can  we  find  a  particle  of  proof  that  immersion  was  the 
Jewish  mode  ?  Is  it  not  plain  to  every  unbiased  mind  that 
Mark  uses  this  word  (baptismoiis)  to  denote  affusion  ? 

5.  Again  :  see  Heb.  9 :  10.  "  Which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks  and  divers  wasJmigs;  {diaphorois  baptismoisJ^) 
The  mode  of  these  divers  baptisms  is  explained  in  the  context. 
The  Apostle  shows,  in  the  following  verses,  that  he  means  the 
various  modes  of  ceremonial  cleansing  that  were  enjoined  under 
the  law  —  the  principal  and  most  frequent  of  which  was  sprink- 
ling. Saith  he,  "  The  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  and  the 
ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  puri- 
fying of  the  flesh  —  for  when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept 
to  all  the  people  according  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of  calves, 
and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop,  and 
sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  people.  "Moreover  he 
sprinkled  likewise  with  blood,  both  the  tabernacle  and  all  the 
vessels  of  the  ministry.  And  almost  all  things  are  by  the  law 
purged  (cleansed)  by  blood,"  that  is,  the  sprinkling  of  blood. 
Here  Paul  speaks  of  divers  baptisms,  and  then  illustrates  them 
by  reference  to  divers  sprinklings  ;  the  conclusion  is  irresisti- 
ble and  certain  that  Paul  uses  baptizo  to  signify  sprinkling.  If 
it  had  been  his  object  to  teach  the  church  in  all  coming  time 
that  one  meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  sprinkle,  could  he  have  used 
stronger  language  ? 

6.  Again  :  see  1  Cor.  10:  1,  2.  "Moreover,  brethren,  I  would 
not    that    ye  should  be   ignorant,    how  that  all    our  fathers 


32  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea ;  and 
were  all  baptized  {ehaptisanto)  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea."  Paul  here  refers  to  the  period  when  the  children 
of  Israel  passed  through  the  Red  Sea,  an  account  of  which 
reads  thus  :  (Ex.  14  :  21—22,)  "  And  Moses  stretched  out  his 
hand  over  the  sea  ;  and  the  Lord  caused  the  sea  to  go  back  by  a 
strong  east  wind  all  that  night,  and  made  the  sea  dry  land,  and 
the  waters  were  divided.  And  the  children  of  Israel  went  into 
the  midst  of  the  sea  upon  the  dri/  ground;  and  the  waters  were 
a  wall  unto  them  on  their  right  hand,  and  on  their  left."  All 
candid  minds  will  agree  that  Paul,  in  the  above  passage,  speaks 
of  water  baptism,  and  that  the  whole  multitude  of  the  Israelites, 
were  really  and  truly  baptized.  The  only  inquiry  now  before 
us  is,  what  was  the  mode  of  this  baptism  ?  It  is  certain  they 
were  not  immersed  in  the  Red  Sea.  Moses  says  expressly, 
they  went  between  two  walls  of  water  upon  the  dry  ground. 
The  Bible  says,  several  times,  the  ground  on  which  they  walked 
was  drj/.  It  is  certain  they  were  not  immersed  in  the  clond. 
They  were  under  the  cloud,  and  walked  on  dry  ground.  How 
then  were  the  children  of  Israel  baptized,  when  they  passed  the 
Red  Sea  1  We  have  reason  for  thankfulness  that  the  Psalmist 
informs  us:  See  Psalm  77.  When,  verse  20,  "  thou  leddest  thy 
people  like  a  flock,  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron,"  (verse  16, 
18)  "  the  waters  saw  thee,  O  God,  the  waters  saw  thee  ;  they 
were  afraid ;  the  depths  also  were  troubled.  The  clouds  poured 
out  water ;  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound  ;  thine  arrows  also  went 
abroad.  The  voice  of  thy  thunder  was  in  the  heaven  ;  the  light- 
nings lightened  the  world ;  the  earth  trembled  and  shook." 
Here  we  learn  that  there  was  thunder,  and  lightning  and  rain  — 
the  clouds  poured  out  water  in  rain  upon  the  Israelites  while 
they  were  journeying  through  the  Red  Sea  ;  which  the  Apostle 
affirms  was  really  and  truly  baptism.  Look,  my  hearers,  at  these 
facts.  Moses  affirms  that  tbcy  passed  through  on  dry  ground. 
The  Psalmist  affirms  that  tbe  clouds  poured  out  water;  and 
Paul  affirms  that  the  Israelites  were  then  baptized.  Hence  this 
baptism  was  certainly  administered  by  jwuring,  Paul  being 
Judge.  Paul  decides  the  question,  therefore,  that  baptizo  signifies 
affiision.  To  his  decision  we  cheerfidly  bow.  If  Paul  was  a 
Pajdobaptist,  as  no  doubt  he  was,  and  if  he  had  made  his  best 
effort  to  teach  us  that  baptizo  signifies  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour, 


MODE    OF    BAPTISIM.  33 

could  he  have  used  plainer  and  stronger  language  ?  The  advo- 
cates of  immersion,  aware  that  Paul  here  uses  baptizo  to  signify 
affusion,  frequently  fancy  that  the  cloud  somehow  or  other  em- 
bosomed the  Israelites  as  water  envelopes  a  person  immersed  in 
it.  Really  ;  would  they  "consider  a  mati  duly  baptized  by  his 
being  placed  between  two  cisterns  of  water,  with  another  cistern 
suspended  over  his  head."" 

Other  cases  might  be  cited  ;  but  it  is  unnecessary.  The  cases 
now  examined,  settle  the  position  that  baptizo  is  used  in  the  Bi- 
ble, sometimes  at  least,  to  signify  affusion.  Look  at  these  cases, 
my  friends,  dispassionately  and  in  the  fear  of  God.  Is  it  not 
certain,  that  when  Luke  says  the  people  were  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  he  used  the  word  baptizo  to  signify  afi'usion?  —  that 
when  Peter  affirms,  that  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  upon  whom 
the  Holy  Ghost  had  fallen  and  been  poured  out,  were  baptized  ; 
he  uses  the  word  baptizo  to  signify  affusion?  —  that  when  Mark 
and  Luke  tell  us  the  Jews  washed  before  dinner,  and  call  this 
washing  baptism  ;  they  use  the  word  baptizo  to  signify  affusion  1 
—  that  when  Mark,  informing  us  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews 
to  wash  their  tables  and  other  furniture,  and  calls  this  washings 
baptism  ;  he  uses  the  word  baptizo  to  signify  affusion"]  —  that 
when  Paul  explains  divers  washings,  to  mean  divers  sprink- 
lings, and  calls  these  washings,  baptisms ;  he  uses  the  word 
haptismos  to  signify  affusion?  —  and  that,  when  Paul  says  the 
children  of  Israel  were  baptized  under  the  cloud,  (and  the  Psalm- 
ist explains  this  baptism  by  affirming  that  this  cloud  poured  out 
rain  upon  them,)  that  Paul  uses  baptizo  to  signify  affusion  ?  I 
repeat ;  is  not  ail  this  certain,  and  plain  ?  Here  then,  we  have 
the  word  baptizo  used  by  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  Peter,  and  Paul, 
to  signify,  beyond  all  doubt,  affusion  —  that  is,  pouring  and 
sprinkling.  What  possible  evidence  can  we  have,  to  support 
any  position,  stronger  and  clearer  than  this  ?   These  witnesses  un- 

*  Adam  Clarke,  (see  his  comment  on  this  passage  at  the  end  of  Mari<  16,)  says, 
"  Paul  clearly  spoke  of  being  baptized  in  the  cloud  with  a  direct  eye  to  the  mois- 
ture which  it  contained.  In  this  view  the  thought  is  strictly  just;  in  any  other 
view  it  would  be  unintelligible.  It  follows  then,  Paul  being  judge,  that  to  be 
sprinkled  is  to  be  baptized."  "  Why  should  we  doubt  that  this  was  said  by 
Paul  for  the  express  purpose  of  providing  means  for  terminating  in  its  proper  time 
a  vexatious  dispute  .'  I  am  persuaded  that  when  the  Apostle  was  taken  to  the  third 
heavens,  he  saw,  from  that  elevation,  the  whole  series  of  the  church's  future 
progress." 

5 


34  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

derstood  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo  —  and  they  have  tes- 
tified truly  and  faithfully.  For  one,  I  must  receive  and  abide 
their  testimony. 

It  may  be  asked,  do  these  witnesses  never  testify  that  baptizo 
signifies  immersion  ?  Suppose  they  do  :  (though  this  supposition 
may  require  proof :)  but  suppose  they  do  use  the  word  baptizo  to 
signify  immersion  :  they  never,  in  a  single  instance,  testify  that 
baptizo  means  nothing  but  immersion  —  no  —  never.  On  the 
other  hand  they  testify,  by  their  nse  of  the  word,  that  baptizo, 
sometimes  at  least,  signifies  affusion —  that  is,  the  act  of  pour- 
ing upon,  and  sprinkling. 

To  the   foregoing  arguments,  I  add  three  interesting  facts. 

The^/-5^  fact  is,  the  translators  of  the  Bible  have  not  rendered 
bapiizo,  to  itnmerse  or  diji-,  in  a  single  instance  in  the  New 
Testament ;  though  the  word  is  used  about  eighty  times. 
Wherever  they  have  translated  it,  (as  they  have  done  in  some  in- 
stances,) they  have  translated  it  wash,  or  some  word  that  does  not 
necessarily  signify  a  total  immersion.  Generally  they  have  only 
transcribed  the  word,  giving  it  the  English  form  baptize.  They 
have  never  translated  it  immerse.  And  why  was  this  ?  Did 
they  not  knoio  the  meaning  of  baptizo?  Then  they  were  unfit 
for  their  great  undertaking.  Did  they  know  the  meaning, 
and  not  choose  to  give  it  ?  Then  they  weakly  and  wickedly 
shrunk  from  the  duty  they  undertook.  But  the  translators  of 
the  Bible  were  neither  ignorant  nor  wicked  men.  They  knew, 
and  did  their  duty.  Why  then  did  they  not  translate  baptizo 
into  English?  Because  there  is  no  word  in  English  that  fully, 
and  precisely,  and  in  all  cases,  answers  to  it  in  signification. 
They  did  not  translate  it  sprinkle,  because  they  knew  it  does  not 
always  signify  sprinkle.  They  did  not  translate  it  pour,  because 
they  knew  it  does  not  always  signify  pour.  They  did  not  trans- 
late it  imincrse,  because  they  knew  it  docs  not  always  signify 
immerse.  They  did  not  translate  it  wash,  because  they  knew 
it  does  not  always  signify  wash.  They  knew  it  signifies  the  ap- 
plication of  water  or  other  liquid,  either  by  sj)rinkling,  pouring, 
washing  or  immersing,  and  as  no  one  English  word  expresses 
this  signification,  they  judged  it  best  generally,  to  give  it  an  En- 
glish form  and  leave  it  imlranslated  ;  thus,  like  honest  men,  sub- 
mitting it,  as  the  sacred  writers  do,  to  every  man's  conscience  to 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  35 

practice  (hat  mode  of  baptism  wliich  should  seem  most  proper, 
and  be  most  convenient. 

Tlie  second  fact  is,  tliat  if  Christ  and  the  Apostles  had  intend- 
ed to  confine  us  to  one  and  tlie  same  mode  of  baptism,  they 
might,  and  doubtless  would  have  used  words  of  the  most  definite 
signification.  If  they  had  intended  to  designate  immersion  as 
the  only  mode,  they  might  have  used  the  word  dupto,  which 
signifies  unequivocally  to  dip  or  dive  under.  If  they  had  in- 
tended to  designate  sprinkling  as  the  only  mode,  they  might 
have  used  the  word  rantizo,  which  signifies  unequivocally  to 
sprinkle.  If  they  had  intended  to  designate  pouring  as  the  only 
mode,  they  might  have  used  the  word  ekcheo,  which  signifies  mi- 
equivocally  to  pour.  If  tiiey  had  intended  to  designate  washing 
as  the  only  mode,  they  might  have  used  the  word  louo,  which 
signifies  unequivocally  to  wash.  But  when  they  speak  of  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism,  they  do  not  use  either  of  these  words  ;  they 
uniformly  use  the  word  baptizo,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  signi- 
fies to  sprinkle,  to  wash,  to  immerse,  to  pour;  and  the  irresistible 
conclusion  from  this  remarkable  fact  is,  that  they  did  not  intend 
to  restrict  the  ordinance  to  any  one  mode  of  applying  the  water; 
but  that  everyone  might  choose  that  mode  which  an  enlightened 
conscience  should  show  him  to  be  most  proper  and  significant. 

The  third  fact  is,  that  when  dipping  is  spoken  of  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  word  bapto  (not  Baptizo)  is  generally  used. 
Thus :  "  He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish." 
Matt.  26 :  23.  "  It  is  one  of  the  twelve  that  dippeth  with  me 
in  the  dish."  Mark  14  :  20.  "  Send  Lazarus  that  he  may  dip 
the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water."  Luke  16  :  24.  "  He  it  is,  to 
whom  1  shall  give  a  sop  when  1  have  dipped  it."  John  13 :  26. 
"  And  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop,  he  gave  it  to  Judas  Iscar- 
iot."  John  13  :  26.  "  And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped 
in  blood."  Rev.  19 :  13.  In  each  of  these  cases  of  dipping, 
the  Apostles  have  used  the  word  bapto,  and  not  baptizo.  This 
is  a  remarkable  fact.  If,  as  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion 
assert,  the  only  meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  dip,  why  do  the  Apos- 
tles always  use  another  word  when  they  wish  to  convey  the  idea 
of  total  plunging  J  The  fact  that  when  they  speak  of  dipping 
they  use  another  word,  furnishes  conclusive  proof  that  they  do 
not  consider  the  only  meaning  of  baptizo  to  be  immersion. 

Let  me  now  briefly  recapitulate.     On  this  second  head  of  our 


36  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

discourse,  I  have  shown  first,  from  the  testimony  of  the  best  Lexi- 
cons, and  the  most  renowned  Greek  scholars,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  that  one  prominent  meaning  of  baptizo  and  its  deriva- 
tives is  affusion.  I  have  shown  secondly,  from  a  number  of 
Scripture  texts,  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  use  the 
word  baptizo  and  its  derivatives  to  signify  affusion  ;  and  they 
use  tliis  word  in  such  connection  and  with  such  appending  cir- 
cumstances, that  no  room  is  left  for  an  unbiased  mind  to  doubt 
their  design  thus  to  use  it.  1  have  remarked  also,  that  tlie  trans- 
lators of  the  Bible  have  never  rendered  the  word  baptizo,  to  im- 
Tnerse  ;  —  that  if  Christ  and  the  Apostles  had  intended  to  desig- 
nate immersion  as  the  only  mode  of  baptism,  they  might,  (and 
doubtless  would,)  have  used  a  word  of  most  definite  signification 
to  that  purpose  ;  — and  that  when  dipping  is  spoken  of  in  the 
New  Testament,  another  word  (not  baptizo)  is  used.  These  are 
deeply  interesting  facts  ;  and  strongly  corroborative  of  the  main 
argument. 

So  far,  then,  as  the  meaning  of  a  word  can  be  settled  by  lexi- 
cons —  by  the  testimony  of  eminent  Greek  scholars  —  and  by 
the  usage  of  profane  and  inspired  writers,  (and  they  furnish  the 
highest  possible  authority,)  it  is  settled  that  one  prominent  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptizo  and  its  derivatives  is  affusion  —  that  is, 
the  act  oi  pouring  upon  or  spriiik'Ung.  This  conclusion  proves 
that  our  Psedobaptist  views  of  the  mode  of  baptism,  are  in  agree- 
ment with  the  word  of  God,  and  rest  on  an  immovable  basis. 
Amen. 


LECTURE    II. 

MODE     OF     BAPTISM. 

ATTENDING  CIECUMSTANCES ALLUSIONS   AND   ECCLESIASTICAL 

HISTORY. 

MATT.   XXVIII.    18,  19, 

In  proof  of  our  position  that  affusion  is  a  valid  mode  of  gospel 
baptism,  we  urge, 

III.  The  ciRcUiM.sTAXCEs  attending  those  cases  of  Christian 
baptism  which  are  recorded  in  the  Bible. 

On  this  point,  the  advocates  of  immersion  are  bound  to  show, 
that  all  the  attending  circumstances  of  all  the  cases  recorded, 
prove  that  immersion  and  nothing  else  is  baptism.  If  these  cir- 
cumstances show  that  sometimes,  or  even  in  a  single  instance, 
affusion  was  the  mode,  then  our  position  is  established.  If  in 
the  sequel,  it  shall  appear  that  the  attending  circumstances  fur- 
nish no  positive  proof  that  immersion  was  the  uniform  mode — 
and  if  they  furnish  a  probability  that  this  mode  was  not  practiced 
in  any  case — and  if  especially  these  circumstances  show  that  af- 
fusioji  was  the  mode  generally,  or  even  occasionally  practiced : 
then  oilr  position  is  established,  and  that  of  our  opponents  over- 
thrown.— Now  I  affirm,  and  shall  show,  that  the  attending  cir- 
cumstances, furnish  no  positive  proof  that  immersion  was  the 
mode  practiced  in  a  single  instance  —  while  in  m,ost  of  the  cases 
recorded  they  show  clearly  that  affusion  was  the  mode  —  and  in 
all  the  other  cases,  that  this  was  probably  the  mode. 

I.  I  begin  with  the  Baptism  of  John —  not  because  this  was 
Christian  baptism,  but  because  the  advocates  of  immersion  de- 
pend much  upon  it.  The  following  facts  show  that  John's  bap- 
tism was  not  Christian  baptism. 

1.     It  was  not  instituted  by  Christ. 


38  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

2.  John  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost. 

3.  Some  wiiom  he  baptized,  afterwards  received  Christian 
baptism.     See  Acts  19. 

4.  His  baptism  was  not  mider  the  Christian  dispensation.  He 
says  the  gospel  dispensation  was  ?iear  ;  but  it  had  not  fully  come 
when  he  was  cast  into  prison. 

5.  John  observed  the  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 

6.  Christ  said  the  gospel  dispensation  was  near,  (not  fully 
come,)  both  before  John  was  put  in  piison  and  afterwards. 

7.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  nothing  but  the  death  of 
Christ  could  set  aside  the  old  and  introduce  the  new  dispensation, 
—  of  course  Christian  baptism  could  not  be  instituted  till  after 
the  crucifixion  —  and  before  that  event,  John's  baptism  was  over 
and  himself  beheaded. 

8.  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ  after  his  cruci- 
fixion and  resurrection.     See  Matt.  28:  18,  19. 

9.  The  Jewish  dispensation  was  in  operation  till  the  death  of 
Christ,  which  appears  from  the  fact,  that  Christ  observed  the 
passover  as  one  of  the  last  acts  of  his  life,  before  the  crucifixion. 

Though  the  gospel  plan  of  salvation  began  to  be  unfolded 
both  by  John  and  by  Christ  previous  to  the  crucifixion,  as  the 
day-spring  announces  the  speedy  approach  of  the  sun,  and  appears 
before  the  full- orbed  day  is  ushered  in  —  yet  the  legal  dispensation 
was  not  finished  and  the  Christian  dispensation  fully  intro- 
duced till  Christ  on  the  cross  exclaimed,  "  It  is  finished  !  "  and  gave 
up  the  Ghost.  Many  commentators  and  theologians  might  be 
cited  to  this  point,  but  the  case  is  so  plain  it  is  unnecessary. 

When  Christ  said,  "  It  is  finished,"  and  gave  up  the  ghost,  then 
and  not  till  then,  the  legal  dispensation  was  closed,  and  the 
Christian  dispensation  commenced.  Previous  to  the  death  of 
Christ,  the  Jewish  ordinances  were  all  in  force;  and  John  and 
Christ  and  believers  generally  observed  them,  till  that  event  in- 
troduced the  Christian  dispensation  —  soon  after  which,  our  bless- 
ed liOrd  instituted  Christian  baptism.  These  are  Bible  truths  : 
and  if  any  of  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  are  unwilling 
to  abide  these  plain  truths,  argument  with  them  will  have  no 
force. 

These  facts  show  beyond  all  dispute,  that  John's  baptism 
was  not  Christian  baptism.     Of  course  liis  baptism  furnishes 


MUDK    OF    BAl'TI8I\l.  39 

no  certain  evidence  on  either  side  as  to  the  mode  of  Christian 
baptism.  But  nevertiieless,  as  the  advocates  of  immersion  place 
much  rehance  upon  Joim's  baptism,  we  \\ill  begin  with  the  bap- 
tism of  John. 

What  mode  of  baptism  did  John  practice? 

Mark  1 :  5.  "And  there  went  out  unto  John  all  the  land  of 
Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in 
the  river  Jordan,"  <fcc. 

John  3 :  23.  "And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to 
Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there ;  and  they  came 
and  were  baptized." 

John  1  :  28.  "  These  things  were  done  in  Bethabara,  beyond 
Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing." 

Mark  1  :  4.     "John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,"  (fee. 

Matt.  3  :  11.  Said  John,  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  ivith  water 
unto  repentance  ;  but  he  that  cometh  after  me,  &c.  ;  he  shall 
baptize  you  icith  the  Holy  Ghost  and  ivith  fire." 

Acts  1:5.  "  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence." 

Matt.  3  :  13  —  16.  "  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jor- 
dan unto  John  to  be  baptized  of  him.  But  John  forbade  him, 
(fee.  —  And  Jesus  said.  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now  ;  for  thus  it  becom- 
eth  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness,  [every  institution.]  Then  he 
suffered  him.  And  Jesus,  when  [i.  e.  after]  he  was  baptized, 
went  up  straightway  out  of  [or  from]  the  water ;  and  lo,  the 
heavens  were  opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God 
descending  like  a  dove  and  ligliting  upon  him." 

In  view  of  these  passages,  what  mode  did  John  practice?  Can 
any  plain,  unbiased  man  say  that  it  is  certain  John  practiced  any 
uniform  mode?  or  if  he  did,  whattliat  mode  was? 

Because  it  is  said,  "  They  were  baptized  of  him  in  the  river 
Jordan,"  some  suppose  that  his  mode  was  innuersion.  But  this  is 
mere  supposition.  Let  us  look  at  the  case.  Has  the  word  in 
here  any  certain  reference  at  all  to  the  mode  ?  Does  it  not  refer 
rather  to  the  place  where  he  baptized  ?  John  baptized  in  the 
wilderness  —  in  Bethabara  —  beyond  Jordan  —  iji  Enon.  In 
these  passages  it  is  obvious  the  word  m  has  reference  to  the 
place  where  John  baptized,  and  not  at  all  to  the  mode  of  his 
baptism.  As  John  baptized  in  the  wilderness —  in  Bethabara  — 
in  Enon  ;  —  so  also  on  another  occasion,  he  baptized  in  the  river 


40  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Jordan  —  or  at,  hy,  or  with  the  river  Jordan.  This  Greek  prcp- 
osiiion  en,  here  rendered  in,  is  frequently  rendered  in  the  New 
Testament  at,  by,  and  loitli,  as  well  as  in.  En  is  rendered  at 
more  than  100  times,  loith  150  times,  by  about  100  limes  in  the 
New  Testament.  If  this  rendering  were  adopted,  as  it  might  be 
with  perfect  propriety,  in  the  above  passages,  it  would  read,  they 
were  baptized  of  him  at  the  river  Jordan  —  or  by  the  river  Jor- 
dan-^-or  with  the  river  Jordan.  And  if  the  passage  were  thus 
rendered,  would  any  plain  man  ever  have  supposed  it  referred  to 
the  mode  of  baptism?  Would  not  all  have  agreed  that  the  sole 
reference  was  to  the  j^lace  7 

But  it  is  said,  John  baptized  in  or  at  Enon,  "because  there 
was  much  water  there."  —  It  is  asked,  does  not  this  prove  that 
the  mode  was  immersion?  By  no  means.  It  might  be  asked, 
why  did  the  king  of  Assyria,  (2  Chron.  32,)  need  much  water, 
though  he  did  not  baptize  at  all  ?  Plainly  for  the  people  and 
the  beasts  that  were  with  him.  It  may  be  asked  also,  why  are 
camp-meetings  always  located  near  mucli  water  ?  Plainly  for 
the-  accommodation  of  the  people  and  their  beasts.  John  bap- 
tized in  the  wilderness  —  in  Bethabara  —  beyond  Jordan  —  and 
in  or  at  Jordan  —  and  as  the  people  flocked  to  him  by  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands,  (perhaps  hundreds  of  thousands,)  he  lo- 
cated himself  at  Enon,  because  there  was  much  water  there  for 
the  accommodation  of  the  vast  multitudes  that  followed  hirn. 
Much  water  was  necessary,  not  for  immersion,  but  to  supply  the 
immense  multitude,  and  their  beasts,  by  means  of  wiiich  they 
had  assembled  from  ail  parts  of  Judea,  and  from  Jerusalem,  itself 
some  fifty  miles  distant.  Now  suppose  it  should  be  said,  a  camp- 
meeting  was  held  last  September  in  P.,  "because  there  was  much 
water  there,"  would  any  mortal  suppose  from  this  expression  that 
the  sole  or  principal  object  of  meeting  in  that  place,  was  to  im- 
merse the  people?  Certainly  not.  Hence  the  expression,  " be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there,"  furnishes  no  conclusive  nor 
even  probable  proof  that  John  baptized  by  immersion. 

Let  us  now  see  how  strongly  the  circumstances  attending 
John's  baptism  f  ivor  the  belief  that  his  mode  was  affusion.  Says 
he,  "  I  baptize  icith  water ;  he  that  cometh  after  me  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  witJi  fire."  If  John  practiced 
immersion,  this  passage  would  be  thus  paraphrased — "I  baptize 
you  by  immersing  with  water ;  but  he  shall  baptize  you  by 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  41 

'pouring  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  you."  The  supposition  that  John 
immersed,  destroys  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  passage.  Men 
are  never  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  immersed  with  or  applied  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  —  but  the  Holy  Ghost  is  always  represented  as 
'poif7-cd,  shed  or  sprinkled  upon  them.  If  John  practiced  im- 
mersion, there  was  no  significancy  in  the  ordinance  apparent. 
If  he  practiced  affusion,  the  mode  was  significant  and  natu- 
ral. Another  question  arises  here.  Was  it  possible  for  John, 
who  did  no  miracle,  to  have  baptized  those  vast  multitudes  in 
eighteen  months,  the  duration  of  his  public  ministry,  by  immer- 
sion ?  No  unbiased  mind  can  believe  it ;  whereas  he  might  have 
accomplished  it  by  afliision  without  difficulty. 

Again :  —  Jesus,  after  he  was  baptized,  "  went  up  straightway 
out  of  the  water,  and  lo,  the  heavens  were  opened  unto  him,  and 
he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  descending  like  a  dove  and  lighting 
upon  him."  The  expression,  "  he  went  up  out  of  the  water," 
it  is  urged  by  the  advocates  of  immersion,  favors  the  belief  that 
Christ  was  immersed.  And  this  belief  is  founded  entirely  upon 
the  words  out  of.  But  if  he  went  up  out  of  the  water,  it  fur- 
nishes no  proof  that  he  was  immersed  while  in  it.  Besides,  the 
word  €12)0,  here  translated  out  of,  as  every  Greek  scholar  knows, 
is  usually  translated,  in  the  New  Testament, //'om.  In  the  first 
five  books,  it  is  translated  from  23.5  times,  and  out  of  only  45 
times ;  hence,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament 
writers,  there  is  five  times  the  weight  of  evidence  in  favor  of 
translating  apo,  from,  rather  than  out  of. 

If  then  we  read  as  Matthew  wrote  it,  Christ  went  u"^  front,  the 
water,  these  words  do  not  furnish  the  least  particle  of  evidence  that 
Christ  was  immersed. 

Again  :  what  was  the  object  of  Christ's  baptism  ?  Saith  he, 
"  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  right- 
eousness." Scott,  commenting  on  this  passage,  says,  "  Jesus  was 
not  capable  of  those  ends  of  baptism,  for  which  it  was  adminis- 
tered to  others  ;  but  he  would  honor  it  as  the  ordinance  of  God  ; 
and  he  would  use  it  as  a  solemn  introduction  to  his  most  sacred 
work  and  offices." 

Adam  Clarke,  commenting  on  the  passage,  says,  "  Our  Lord 

represented  the  High-priest,  and  was  to  be  the  High-priest  over 

the  house  of  God ;  now  as  the  High-priest  was  initiated  into  his 

office  by  washing  and  anointing,  so  must  Christ ;  and  hence 

6 


42 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


he  was  baptized,  washed,  and  anointed  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Thus  he  fulfilled  the  righteous  ordinance  of  his  initiation  into  the 
o^ce  of  High-priest,  and  thus  was  prepared  to  make  an  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  mankind." 

-  Another  distinguished  commentator  says,  "  The  Jewish  priests 
were  always  consecrated  at  the  age  of  thirty  to  their  office,  by 
solemnly  pouring  the  oil  upon  their  heads,  and  by  cleansing  with 
water,  Christ  was  now  about  thirty  years  of  age  —  as  if  the 
Holy  Ghost  intended  lo  inform  us  why  Christ  was  baptized  at 
this  time.  Being  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  he  could  not  be  conse- 
crated by  the  priests  at  Jerusalem.  Tbis  then  was  the  time,  un- 
doubtedly, when  Cbrist  was  consecrated  to  his  offices  of  prophet, 
priest  and  king,  and  if  John  did  it  to  "  fulfill  all  righteousness," 
it  was  doubtless  done  by  pouring  water  upon  him,  to  represent 
tbe  pouring  of  the  oil  by  the  priests  —  and  at  the  same  time  the 
Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him,  and  he  was  anointed  by  the 
Holy  One."* 

Says  Cogswell,  "  John  baptized  Christ  as  an  induction  into 
the  priestly  office.  All  the  priests,"  says  he,  "  under  the  law 
were  baptized,  and  tbus  inducted  into  office,"  at  thirty  years  of 
age — the  age  which  Christ  had  attained  at  the  time  of  his 
baptism.! 

Lathrop  says,  p.  32,  "  The  baptism  of  Christ  was  evidently 
his  public  consecration  to  the  ministry,  on  which  he  was  now 
entering.  He  chose  this  ceremony  of  consecration,  in  conformity 
to  the  law  of  God,  which  had  instituted  a  similar  form  for  the 
separation  of  the  High-priest  to  his  office.  And  therefore  be  says, 
Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness."  Also,  p.  33, 
"  The  priests  under  tbe  law  were  to  enter  on  the  public  service 
of  God  at  the  age  of  thirty  years ;  Christ,  when  he  began  to  be 
aljout  thirty  years  of  age,  was  baptized.  They  were  consecrated 
to  their  office  by  washing,  (i.  c.  sprinkling,)  with  water,  and  by 
anointing  with  oil :  He  was  publicly  inaugurated  into  his  min- 
istry by  baptism  and  tbe  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Another  conmientator  says,  "  In  the  opinion  of  many,  the  Sa- 
vior, wben  baptized  by  John,  was  inducted  into  the  Priest's  office. 
When  Aaron  was  consecrated  to  tbe  office  of  Priest,  Moses  wash- 
ed him  with  water  and  poured  the  anointing  oil  upon  his  head, 

*  Scrip.  IHrec.  p.  l(i.  t  Class  Book,  p.  167. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  43 

But  Jesus,  when  consecrated,  was  baptized  and  anointed  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven."* 

Reed,  in  his  Apology,  p.  211  and  213,  says,  "  The  law  of  Moses 
required  that  the  Levites  should  be  publicly  consecrated,  by  a  sol- 
emn rite  of  purification.  Accordingly  Moses  took  Aaron  and  his 
sons  and  washed,  or  baptized  them,  before  the  assembled  nation. 
In  conformity  to  this  Levitical  law,  Christ  was  baptized  by  John, 
in  the  presence  of  many  witnesses.  —  Thus  he  observed  every  ritu- 
al, as  well  as  moral  precept  of  God's  law.  —  The  baptism  of  Aaron 
and  his  sons  was  inaugural.  So  was  the  baptism  of  Christ.  It 
was  his  consecration  and  induction  to  public  office.  He  was, 
hereby,  legally  called  of  God  —  anointed  and  authorized,  as  was 
Aaron,  to  undertake  his  official  ministrations. — The  sacred  rite 
of  consecration,  administered  by  Moses,  was  performed  by  sprink- 
ling the  water  upon  them.  This  argument,  I  think,  proves  that 
Christ  was  baptized  by  sprinkling." 

Paul  also  teaches  us,  (Heb.  7,)  that  Christ  was  a  Priest,  not 
indeed  after  the  order  of  Aaron,  who  sustained  only  one  office, 
but  after  the  order  or  siinilitude  of  Melchisedec,  "  who  was  not 
only  a  priest,  but  also  a  king;"  which  double  office  the  Aaronic 
priesthood  did  not  sustain.  And  Paul  says  Christ  was  a  Priest, 
"  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment ;  "  i.  e.  not  as  suc- 
ceeding one  who  was  disabled  or  dead,  according  to  the  law  which 
was  directed  to  weak,  carnal,  perishing  men  ;  "  but  after  the 
power  of  an  endless  life ;  "  i.  e.  a  Priest  forever  —  one  who  never 
dies,  and  is  never  disabled  —  one  who  ever  livelh  to  make  inter- 
cession for  us.  Here  then  we  have  the  assurance  of  Paul,  that 
Christ  was  a  Priest,  who  sustained  also,  as  did  Melchisedec,  the 
office  of  king ;  and  Scott,  and  Clarke,  (with  whom,  so  far  as  I 
have  observed,  all  sound  commentators  agree,)  affirm  that  he  was 
initiated  into  the  office  of  Priest,  by  baptism  and  the  anointing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  descended  upon  him.  Hence  the  object 
of  Christ's  baptism,  was  his  solemn  introduction  into  his  priestly 
office.  Now  the  Priests,  as  the  Bible  expressly  assures  us,  were 
consecrated  by  purification  with  water  and  anointing  with  oil  — 
and  this  purification  was  done  by  sprinkling  —  (See  Numb.  8,) 
"  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying.  Take  the  Levites 
and  cleanse  them  —  and  thus  slialt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse 

*  Cottage  Bible,  note  —  in  loco. 


44  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

them  —  sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  them,"  &c.  When 
therefore  Jesus  told  John  that  it  became  them  to  fulfill  all  right- 
eousness, i.  e.  to  observe  every  institution,  he  baptized  him  ;  and 
lo,  the  heavens  were  opened  and  the  Spirit  of  God  descended  upon 
him.  — And  Luke  says,  God  anointed  him  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
(Acts  10 :  38,)  which  descended  upon  him  at  his  baptism.  Thus 
Christ  was  baptized  with  water  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  —  And 
in  view  of  all  these  circumstances,  can  any  unbiased  mind  doubt 
that  the  mode  of  Christ's  baptism  was  by  affusion  ?  Some  of 
the  advocates  of  immersion  may  sneer  at  these  truths,  and  talk 
about  absurdities  ;  but  their  sneers  will  not  overturn  the  word 
of  the  ever-living  God.  We  have  the  testimony  of  Moses,  and 
Matthew,  and  Paul,  that  these  things  are  so,  and  the  testimony 
of  these  three  witnesses  is  true  and  will  stand  forever. 

We  have  before  us  now  a  full  view  of  John's  baptism.  What 
mode  did  he  practice  ?  No  man  can  say  positively  it  was  im- 
mersion, for  this  plain  reason,  there  is  no  positive  or  probable 
evidence  of  it.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  circumstantial  evi- 
dence is  very  clear  and  strong  that  he  baptized  by  affusion. 
In  the  case  of  our  blessed  Lord,  especially,  the  evidence  is  full 
and  satisfactory  that  he  was  baptized  by  affusion.* 

2.  Let  us  now  look  at  some  cases  of  Christian  baptism.  — 
The  first  case  of  Christian  baptism  to  which  I  ask  your  atten- 
tion, is  that  of  the  three  thousand,  which  occurred  a  few  days 
after  Christ's  ascension,  (Acts  2.)  The  Holy  Ghost  was  poured 
upon  that  multitude  —  they  were  thus  regenerated  ;  and  it  seems 
they  were  baptized  on  the  spot,  that  same  day —  and  this  was  evi- 
dently done  by  twelve  men,  —  the  Apostles.  Ijuke  says  expressly, 
(v.  14,)  Peter  stood  there,  "with  the  eleven"  Apostles;  and,  (v.  42,) 

*  Many  of  the  ancients  were  of  opinion  that  John  baptized  by  pouring.  Au- 
relius  Prudentius,  who  wrote  290  years  after  the  Apostles,  (Walker's  Doc.  Bap. 
chap.  10,)  represents  .Toiin  as  baptizing  by  pouring,  (perfundit  fluvio.) — Not 
long  after,  Paulinus,  bishop  of  Nola,  says,  "  .John  Baptist  washed  away  the  sins 
of  believers,  (infusis  lyniphis,)  by  the  pouring  of  water."  Numerous  ancient 
pictures  represent  Christ  as  having  been  baptized  by  pouring.  Bernard  speaks 
of  John  as  having  baptized  his  Lord  after  this  manner;  —  Lightfoot  says,  "  As  it 
is  beyond  a  doUbt  that  John  took  those  whom  he  baptized  into  the  river,  so  it  is 
scarcely  less  certain  that  he  there  sprinkled  them  with  water." — (Com.  on  Luke 
3:  16.) — One  of  our  missionaries,  who  has  lately  visited  the  place,  where 
tradition  says  John  baptized  Christ,  relates  that  while  there,  some  of  the  com- 
pany went  down  into  the  water  and  were  baptized  by  kneeling  and  having  water 
poured  ujion  them,  as  it  was  believed  John  baptized  Christ. 


MODF,    OF    P.ATPISM.  45 

he  says  the  three  thousand  continued  steadfastly  in  the  Apostles' 
doctrine.  Not  an  intimation  that  any  ministers  but  the  twelve 
Apostles  were  concerned  in  the  transactions  of  that  day.  Now 
what  was  the  mode  of  baptism  then  practiced?  Was  it  immer- 
sion or  affusion  ?  Look  at  the  attending  circumstances.  The 
occasion  was  unanticipated.  Probably  at  sunrise  that  morning, 
not  an  individual  thought  of  being  baptized.  The  people  were 
principally  strangers  from  diOerent  and  distant  countries.  Par- 
thians,  Medes,  Elamitcs,  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,  in  Judea, 
Cappadocia,  Pontus,  Asia,  &c.  6cc.  They  could  have  made  no 
previous  preparation  for  a  change  of  garments.  They  could 
liave  no  access  to  the  Temple.*  No  public  or  private  baths  had 
been  engaged,  so  far  as  we  learn,  nor  could  there  be  —  for  the 
whole  city  were  violently  opposed  to  the  Apostles  and  their  ad- 
herents ;  and  they  were  many  miles  from  both  Jordan  and  Enon. 
There  is  not  a  word  said,  moreover,  of  their  leaving  the  place 
where  they  were  assembled :  and  under  these  circumstances  the 
baptism  took  place  that  same  day.  The  meeting  began  at  the 
third  hour,  that  is,  nine  o'clock.  Several  sermons  were  preached 
and  many  exhortations  given  ;  three  thousand  were  converted 
and  concluded  to  be  baptized.  —  All  this  must  have  occupied  sev- 
eral hours,  not  less  than  five  or  six  —  after  which,  three  thousand 
were  baptized  in  the  midst  of  a  great  city,  probably  by  twelve 
men  ;  making  250  a  piece,  which,  reckoning  one  in  two  minutes, 
would  require  between  eight  and  nine  hours.  — Now,  under  all 
these  attending  circumstances,  what  was  the  mode?  It  seems 
utterly  impossible  that  it  was  immersion.  I  cannot  doubt  that  it 
was  affusion ;  (there  was  time  to  have  done  it  in  this  mode  ;) 
especially  when  I  recollect  that  alfusion  is  one  prominent  mean- 
ing of  baptize,  and  that  the  Apostles,  and  even  these  three  thou- 
sand, had  just  been  baptized  or  afl'used  with  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  I  see  not  how  any  man  who  will  lay  aside  his  prejudices, 
and  look  at  these  circimistances  candidly,  can  doubt  that  the  mode 

*  The  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  tell  us,  that  these  baptisms  might 
have  taken  place  at  the  Temple,  in  the  brass  lavers,  dipping  room,  and  molten 
sea.  But  it  is  manifes-t,  they  were  not  assembled  at  the  Temple,  and  could  have 
no  access  there  for  such  a  purpose.  'Though  subsequently  it  is  said,  "  they  con- 
tinued daily  in  the  Temple,  and  I)reaking  bread  from  house  to  house,"  yet  whoever 
will  read  the  second,  third  and  fourth  chapters  of  Acts,  will  see  that  the  idea 
that  the  transactions  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  took  place  at  the  Temple,  is  mere 
supposition. 


46  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

of  baptism  in  this  case  was  afTusion.  There  is  not  a  particle 
of  evidence  that  it  was  immersion. 

3.  The  next  case  to  which  I  ask  your  attention,  is  that  of 
Paul,  (Acts  9  :  18,  19,)  —  "And  immediately  there  fell  from  his 
eyes  as  it  had  been  scales,  and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and 
arose,  and  was  baptized.  And  when  he  had  received  meat  he 
was  strengthened."  What  was  the  mode  by  which  Paul  was 
baptized?  Look  at  the  attending  circumstances  so  minutely  de- 
scribed by  Luke.  Paul  had  been  three  days  prostrated  without 
food  or  drink,  (and  from  the  fact  -that  Luke  says,  he  was  strength- 
ened after  he  took  meat,)  it  is  evident  that  he  was  previously 
without  strength.  And  when  Ananias  came  and  spoke  to  him, 
and  assured  him  that  he  should  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
immediately  there  fell  from  Paul's  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales,  and 
he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  —  thus  taking  a  proper 
posture  —  this,  it  seems,  was  all  he  did  —  no  intimation  that  he 
even  left  the  room  or  bedside — nay,  it  seems  impossible  for  him 
to  leave  the  room  —  he  was  not  yet  strengthened.  —  "  He  arose," 
—  this  was  all,  and  was  baptized,  and  when  he  had  taken  meat, 
after  his  baptism,  he  was  strengthened.  These  circumstances 
show  positively  and  conclusively  that  Paul  was  baptized  in  that 
very  room  where  he  was.  And  what  was  the  mode  ?  To  me, 
and  I  believe  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  it  is  plain  that  it  was 
afTusion.  When  I  recollect  that  one  prominent  meaning  of  bap- 
tizo  is  affusion,  and  look  at  this  circumstantial  evidence,  how  can 
I  doubt?     How  can  any  man  doubt? 

That  Paul  was  baptized  by  affusion,  is  further  evident  from  what 
he  himself  says,  (Acts  22:  16.)  He  affirms,  that  Ananias  (not 
God)  called  u|)on  him  "  to  arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away 
his  sins,"  calling  on  the  Lord.  And  every  man,  nay,  every 
€hild  knows  that  washing  does  not  ordinarily  mean  immersing. 
In  washing  we  uniformly  put  the  water  upon  us.  This  case  of 
Paul's  baptism,  then,  settles  the  question.  Tlie  water  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  were  poured  upon  him.  The  advocates  of  immer- 
sion, knowing  that  all  the  circumstances  of  this  case  lie  against 
their  views,  try  to  evade  them  by  telling  us  that  Paul  says,  "  we 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death."  This  is  true  indeed 
of  all  real  Christians  who  put  on  Christ  and  die  unto  sin  —  who 
are  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  buried  to  the  vanities  and  iniqui- 
ties of  the  world  —  and  who,  relying  wholly  by  faith  upon  the 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  47 

death  of  Christ,  are  sanctified  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  thus  raised  up  from  a  carnal  to  a  holy  hfe.  —  But  Paul  says 
not  a  word,  no  never,  about  having  been  immersed  at  the  time 
he  was  baptized  there  in  that  room  by  Ananias.* 

4.  Let  us  look  next  at  the  case  of  Cornelius,  and  his  family  and 
neighbors;  (Acts  10:  44  —  47.)  Peter  preached  to  them  the  gospel, 
and  "  the,  Holy  Ghost,"  says  Luke,  "/eZ/  on  all  them  which 
heard  the  word," — "and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  he  says, 
"  was  jfoured  out  upon  them  ;"  and  Peter  perceiving  that  they 
were  thus  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  said,  "  Can  any  man 
forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost?  "  This  is  a  strong  case,  and  the  circumstantial 
evidence  is  entirely  conclusive.  Here  is  not  a  word  said  about 
going  to  a  river,  or  pond  —  no  hint  about  leaving  the  house,  or  of 
any  preparation  for  immersion  ;  —  but  only  ''  can  any  man  for- 
bid water?  "  that  is,  evidently,  '•  can  any  man  forbid  that  water 
should  be  brought?  "  —  this  is  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  — 
the  idea  which  the  form  of  words  instantly  suggests  to  every  can- 
did, unprejudiced  mind.  Moreover,  the  design  and  mode  of  bap- 
tism are  Iwtli  clearly  exhibited  in  this  account.  Cornelius  and 
his  friends  were  baptized  or  aflfused  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
Peter  assigns  this  as  a  reason  why  they  should  be  baptized  or 
afliised  with  water.  TIic  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  was  per- 
formed, Luke  says,  by  aO'usion  —  to  make  the  baptism  with 
water  significant,  that  also  must  be  by  afl'usion.  Hence  this  case 
proves  our  position  beyond  all  debate.  The  advocates  of  immer- 
sion cannot  controvert  this  proof;  and  the  method  by  which  they 
usually  attempt  to  do  it,  shows  that  they  have  no  valid  reason  to 
offer.  They  usually  retreat  by  saying  there  is  no  evidence  here 
of  infant  baptism.  —  Very  well.  —  We  refer  to  this  case  to  prove 
that  affusion  is  the  mode  —  not  to  prove  that  infants  are  subjects. 

—  We  have  other  and  abundant  Bible  proofs  of  infant  baptism. 

*To  evade  the  argument  from  this  case  of  Paul's  baptism,  our  opponents  some- 
times tell  us  that  he  was  immersed  in  a  bath  there,  on  the  spot.  And  where  do 
they  find  this  ?  Luke  the  liistorian  says  nothing  about  a  bath.  A  bath  is  never 
mentioned  in  the  Bible  in  connection  with  baptism.  Indeed,  it  is  a  remarkable 
fact,  that  we  have  no  account  in  the  Bible  of  any  person's  going  from  the  place 
where  he  was,  to  receive  baptism.      If  he  was  at  a  river,  he  was  baptized  there 

—  If  he  was  in  a  house  —  or  sick-room  —  or  jail  —  there  he  was  baptized  ;  —  a 
conclusive  circumstance  that  it  was  done  by  afl'usion. 


48  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

5.  Let  us  look  next  at  the  case  of  the  Jailer ;  (Acts,  16.)  An 
earthquake  shook  the  place  —  the  Jailer  was  alarmed,  astonished, 
and  converted  —  and  he  and  all  his  house  were  baptized  straight- 
way—  that  same  hour  —  at  midnight — it  would  seem  in  the 
outer  room  of  the  jail.  The  proof  here  is  decisive,  that  they 
were  baptized  by  affusion.  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  believe 
they  were  inniiersed.  Is  it  credible  that  Paul  and  Silas  left  the 
jail  in  a  clandestine  manner  at  midnight,  and  went  away  to  a 
river,  regardless  of  the  strict  charge  the  jailer  had  received  to 
keep  them  safely,  and  at  a  moment  too  when  the  whole  city 
were  in  motion,  having  been  aroused  by  an  earthquake?  In  the 
morning  they  refused  to  go  out,  until  conducted  by  the  magis- 
trates who  had  put  them  in,  which  was  downright  duplicity  if 
they  had  been  off  to  a  river  during  the  night.  And  the  suppo- 
sition sometimes  made  by  the  advocates  of  immersion  that  in  that 
heathen  prison,  never  before  visited  by  a  Christian  minister,  there 
was  a  pool  for  baptizing  Christians,  is  too  far  fetched  to  merit  a 
serious  consideration.  Can  any  plain,  unprejudiced  man  look 
candidly  at  this  case,  recollecting  that  one  prominent  meaning  of 
baptizo  is  affusion,  and  have  a  lingering  doubt  that  the  jailer  and 
his  household  were  baptized  by  affusion  ?  The  advocates  of 
immersion  sometimes  throw  out  the  insinuation  that  after  the 
jailer  and  his  family  were  baptized  they  returned  to  the  house. 
But  Luke  says  no  such  thing.  The  order  of  events  as  stated 
by  Luke  was  this  :  —  The  earthquake  occurred  —  the  jailer 
sprang  in  and  brought  Paul  and  Silas  from  the  inner  prison, 
evidently  into  the  outer  prison  —  there  the  preaching,  the  wash- 
ing their  stripes,  and  the  baptism  took  place  —  and  the  baptism 
being  performed,  he  brought  them  into  his  house,  wiiich,  it  seems, 
was  on  the  premises ;  perhaps  one  end  of  the  jail  building,  and 
there  he  gave  them  meat.  This  is  all  perfectly  plain,  and  it 
proves  our  position  beyond  controversy. 

6.  Let  us  look  next  at  the  case  of  the  eunuch  :  (Acts,  8.) 
Because  it  is  said,  "  they  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip 
and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him,  and  when  they  were  come 
up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip," 
the  advocates  of  immersion  suppose  that  the  eunuch  was  im- 
mersed. But  admit  they  did  go  down  into  and  come  out  of  the 
water ;  it  is  begging  the  question  to  suppose  that  while  in  the 
water,  the  eunuch  was  immersed.     Thousands  who  are  baptized 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  49 

at  the  present  day  go  down  into  the  water,  a  few  inches  deep, 
and  are  there  baptized  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  the  water  upon 
them  while  kneeling.  One  of  the  clergymen,  and  a  number  of 
the  members  of  the  Congregational  and  Methodist  churches  of 
this  village,  were  thus  baptized,  and  this  is  a  common  method. 
If,  then,  Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  into  and  came  out  of  the 
water,  it  furnishes  no  positive  proof  that  he  was  immersed.  But 
there  is  no  certain  evidence  that  they  even  stepped  into  the  water 
an  inch  deep.  The  Greek  word  eis,  here,  (Acts  8  :  38,)  render- 
ed into,  is  very  frequently,  though  not  always,  rendered  to  and 
tmto.  It  is  rendered  to  and  unto  285  times  in  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  John,  and  Acts ;  and  the  word  ek  is  often,  though  not 
always,  rendered /rom.  This  word  eis  is  rendered  to  four  times 
in  this  very  chapter.  The  language  of  Luke  then  may  read, 
(and  the  authority'Tor  this  reading  is  undoubted,)  they  went  down 
to  the  water  and  came  up  from  the  water.  This  is  as  two  trav- 
elers on  the  road  would  naturall}'^  do,  if  they  wished  to  baptize 
by  alTusion.  There  is  another  strong  circumstance  in  this  case. 
The  eunuch  was  reading  the  passage,  (Isaiah,  52  and  53  ;  this 
was  then  all  one  paragraph,  the  division  into  chapters  being  of 
modern  date,)  where  the  Prophet  describes  the  sufferings  and 
mission  of  Christ.  In  this  very  passage,  it  was  predicted  among 
other  things,  that  Christ,  when. he  should  come,  would  spi-inkle 
or  baptize  many  nations.  The  eunuch,  being  told  that  Christ 
had  actually  come  and  suffered  all  that  was  foretold,  inquired, 
*•  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  \  This  Savior  who  was 
to  sprinkle  or  baptize  many  nations  has  come,  and  I  am  one  of 
them — let  me  be  baptized."  And  they  went  down  from  the 
carriage  to  the  water,  and  he  was  baptized  ;  and  to  make  the 
act  correspond  with  the  prediction,  the  mode  must  have  been  by 
affusion.  Now,  I  ask,  is  there  a  particle  of  positive  proof  that 
the  eunuch  was  immersed  ?  On  the  other  hand,  is  it  not  highly 
probable  from  these  circumstances,  and  from  the  fact  that  one 
prominent  meaning  of  baptizoris  to  pour  and  sprinkle,  that  even 
the  eunuch  was  baptized  by  affusion?* 

*  The  advocates  of  immersion  dwell  upon  it  as  their  main  argument,  that  they 
find  these  expressions  used,  to  wit  ; — tliey  went  into  and  came  out  of  the  water. 
But  wlicn  we  show  that  the  words  rendered  into  and  ottt  of,  are  more  generally 
rendered  to  and  from,  and  tliat  therefore  no  conclusive  argument  can  be  built 
upon  these  expressions  —  and  that  if  they  prove  anything,  they  prove  in  favor  of 

7 


50  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Let  US  look  next  at  the  practice  of  Christ  and  the  twelve  Apos- 
tles. "After  these  things,  (.Tohn,  3  :  22,)  came  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  with  them 
and  baptized."* 

"  When  therefore,  (John  4  :  1,  2,)  the  Lord  knew  how  the 
Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples 
than  John,  though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples," 
&c.  Now  though  the  disciples  baptized  such  immense  multi- 
tudes, (more  than  John,)  not  a  word  is  said  about  their  going  to 
Enon,  or  Jordan,  or  any  other  river,  brook,  or  pond.  It  is  not 
even  intimated  that  they  immersed  a  single  person,  or  that  they 
even  went  to  a  river  or  fountain  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing: 
what  can  be  the  reason  ?  Plainly,  because  they  baptized  loith 
water,  not  in  water.  Why,  we  ask,  is  so  much  said  at  the  pres- 
ent day  about  John's  baptism,  which  was  not  Christian  baptism, 
and  so  little  said  about  the  baptism  by  Christ  and  his  disciples  ? 
Clnist  sent  forth  the  twelve,  two  and  two,  to  go  from  city  to  city 
and  from  house  to  house  to  preach  and  baptize,  and  where  they 
preached,  there,  in  those  very  houses,  for  auglit  that  appears,  they 
baptized.  How  can  we  doubt,  with  these  facts  before  us,  that 
the  mode  was  orchnarily  by  affusion  ? 

Is  it  necessary  to  proceed  further  ?  We  have  examined,  I  trust 
fairly,  the  circumstances  attending  John's  baptism  —  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  Christ  —  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost —  of  the  Apostle  Paul  —  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends  —  of 
the  Jailer  and  his  household  —  of  the  eunuch  — and  those  under 
the  immediate  direction  of  Christ  and  the  twelve;  and  what  is 
the  result?     Do  all  or  either  of  these  cases  furnish  any  positive 

affusion  ;  this  argument,  upon  which  they  place  chief  reliance,  is  entirely  de- 
stroyed —  and  some  of  them  are  willing  to  acknowledge  it.  But  there  are  others 
who,  seeing  their  main  pillar  swept  away,  resort  to  ridicule  and  misrepresentation, 
and  talk  of  Jonah's  being  cast  at  the  sea,  and  the  wicked  being  turned  by  hell. 
Do  they  hope  in  this  way  to  blind  their  followers,  and  keep  them  from  looking  at 
the  truth  ?  And  do  they  expect  sensible  l^uen  will  be  convinced  by  ridicule  and 
misrepresentation,  rather  tiian  by  sound  argument  ?  And  will  they  thus  "  strength- 
en the  hands  and  encourage  the  hearts  of  tlie  wicked,  in  their  attempts  to  evade 
the  force  of  truth,  when  it  does  not  correspond  with  their  prejudices  and  their 
practices  ?" 

*  I  refer  to  this  case  to  show  what  Christ  sanctioned  —  not  that  it  is  a  case  of 
Christian  baptism. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  51 

proof  that  immersion  was  the  mode  practiced  ?  If  so,  which  is 
it?  There  is  no  positive  proof  that  John  baptized  by  immersion 
—  nor  that  Christ  was  baptized  by  immersion  —  nor  that  the 
eunuch  was  :  —  the  balance  of  evidence  arising  from  tlie  circum- 
stances in  each  of  tliese  cases,  is  in  favor  of  affusion.  And  in 
the  case  of  the  tliree  iliousand  —  of  Paul —  of  Cornehus  —  of 
the  Jailer  —  and  of  those  baptized  by  Christ  and  the  twelve,  the 
circumstances  show  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  to  every  un- 
biased niind,  that  affusion  was  the  mode  practiced.  Where, 
then,  do  we  find  a  single  case  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  Bible 
which  furnishes  positive  proof  that  immersion  was  practiced  ? 
No-where.  —  There  is  no  such  case  in  the  Bible.  Whereas  on  the 
other  hand,  the  proof  is  as  conclusive  as  circumstantial  proof  can 
be,  that  affusion  was  generally,  perhaps  always  practiced.  The 
supposition  of  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  therefore  falls 
to  the  ground,  while  our  position  stands  firm  and  immovable, 
sustained  by  the  testimony  of  such  witnesses  as  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  John,  Paul,  Peter,  and  Jesus  Christ.  Being  found  in 
such  company,  if  we  are  humble  and  believing,  we  need  not  fear  : 
the  ordinances  of  God  will  be  preserved,  let  who  may  misrepre- 
sent, and  sneer  and  ridicule. 

In  proof  of  our  position  that  immersion  is  not  the  only  gos- 
pel baptism  —  and  that  affusion  is  a  valid  mode,  we  urge, 

IV.  The  Bible  allusions  to  this  ordinance.  Here,  a  few 
references  will  suffice.  Isaiah,  (52  :  15,)  referring  to  gospel  days, 
(as  all  who  read  the  passage  may  see,  and  as  all  judicious  com- 
mentators affirm,)  speaks  of  Christ  and  says,  "  he  shall  sprinkle 
many  nations."  What  Christ  does  by  his  ministers,  he  is  said  to 
do  himself;  how  then  does  he  sprinkle  many  nations,  unless  it 
be  by  water  baptism?  Again  —  Ezekiel,  (36:  25,)  speaking  in 
the  name  of  Jehovah  to  the  Jews,  utters  a  promise  that  should 
be  fulfilled  under  the  gospel :  —  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean ;  and  a  new  heart  will  I 
give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you,"  &.c.  There 
can  be  no  mistake  here.  Creating  the  heart  anew,  and  sprinkling 
clean  water  are  so  joined  together  that  no  one  need  mistake  the 
fact,  that  under  the  gospel,  baptism  would  represent  purification 
by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  it  should  be  performed  by  sprink- 
ling. The  mode  is  here  designated  as  specifically  as  language 
can  do  it.     If  (here  were  one  passage  in  the  whole  Bible  in  favor 


e 


52  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

of  immersion,  as  definite  as  these  two  are  in  favor  of  sprinkling, 
it  would  certainly  be  considered  a  striking  allusion.  And  how 
do  the  advocates  of  immersion  evade  these  plain  passages'? 
They  cannot  deny  that  they  are  predictions  of  what  would  take 
place  under  the. gospel.  They  cannot  say  that  they  are  not  ex- 
plicit in  foretelling  that  the  mode  of  applying  the  water  would 
be  by  sprinkling.  How  then  do  they  meet  them?  I  will  tell 
you,  my  hearers.  They  say,  (and  it  is  all  they  can  say,)  that 
these  texts  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  there  they  leave 
them. 

Again  :  under  the  Jewish  economy  the  unclean  were  sprink- 
led with  the  water  of  purification,  and  many  things  were  cleans- 
ed by  sprinkling  water  and  blood  —  and  these  various  sprink- 
lings the  Apostle  Paul  calls  divers  baptisms.  So  again,  the 
blood  of  Christ  is  called  the  blood  of  sjirinkling.  And  again,  our 
hearts  and  consciences  are  said  to  be  sprinkled.  And  again, 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  baptism  of  water  ar 
represented  by  the  same  language  —  •'  I  baptize  you  with  water ; 
he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."*  And  this  baptizing 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  is  explained  in  the  Bible  to  mean  to  co97ie 
upon  —  to  fall  upon  —  to  be  shed  forth  —  to  pour  out —  to 
come  down  like  rain.  And,  my  hearers,  is  there  no  meaning 
in  all  this  language  ?  Are  not  these  expressions  clear,  and  per- 
tinent and  decisive  ?  In  that  passage  also,  (.Tohn  13,)  where  we 
are  taught  how  Christ  washed  the  disciples'  feet,  there  is  a  prin- 
ciple laid  down  by  the  Savior  which  cannot  be  controverted. 
That  washing,  as  the  Savior  affirmed,  was  a  symbol  of  the 
purification  of  the  soul  through  the  blood  of   Christ;  and   he 

*  The  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  frequently  tell  us  that  the  Greek 
preposition  en,  should  always  be  rendered  in  and  not  with.  If  this  were  so,  we 
must  read,  "lie  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in  fire,"  which  is  ab- 
surd. En  is  indeed  sometimes  rendered  in,  but  in  many  instances  tcith  is  the 
only  rendering  that  can  properly  be  given  it.  For  example  :  — 1  Cor.  5  :  8. 
«'  Let  us  keep  the  feast,  not  (en)  ivith  old  leaven,  neither  (en)  with  the  leaven 
of  malice  and  wickedness  ;  but  (en)  with  the  unleavened  bread,"  &c.  2  Cor. 
13:  4.  "  We  also  are  weak  (en)  with  him."  Eph.  6  :  2.  "Which  is  the 
first  commandment  (en)  ivith  promise."  1  Thess.  4:  18.  "Comfort  one 
another  (en)  loith  these  words."  Kev.  6  :  8.  "To  kill  (en)  with  sword  and 
(en)  w<'</t  hunger  and  (en)  lo it h  death,""  &c.  LukeH:  20.  "  But  if  I  {en)  tvith 
the  finger  of  God  cast  out  devils,"  &c.  In  each  of  these  ten  cases  with  is  the 
only  appropriate  rendering,  and  this  is  true  of  a  multitude  of  other  passages. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  53 

taught  the  disciples  that  a  symbohcal  washing  is  complete,  al- 
though it  be  applied  only  to  the  feet;  as  complete  as  if'it  were 
applied  to  the  hands  and  the  head ;  "  He  that  is  washed,  need- 
eth  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit."  This 
principle  is  applicable  to  every  other  symbolical  washing,  and 
therefore  to  baptism.  If  water  be  applied  to  any  part  of  the 
body  in  baptism,  the  design  of  the  ordinance  is  answered. 

Another  consideration  is,  that  immersion  is  not  fitted  for  univer- 
sal practice.  It  cannot  be  administered  in  all  situations,  and  to  all 
persons.  "  There  are  inhabited  portions  of  the  earth,  where  water 
sufficient  for  this  mode  of  baptism  might  not  occur,  once  in  a  hun- 
dred miles.  There  are  other  portions,  where,  amidst  mountains  of 
ice,  and  almost  perpetual  snow,"  immersion  must,  for  a  consider- 
able portion  of  the  year,  be  imprudent,  nay,  impracticable.  Yet 
the  religion  of  Christ  will  ere  long  be  spread  over  "these  arid 
and  these  frozen  regions,"  and  all  the  people  there  will  be  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  It  is 
plain  that  they  will  not  be  immersed.  There  are  many,  also,  in 
all  our  towns  who  become  the  children  of  God  while  in  declin- 
ing health,  and  on  a  sick  bed,  and  whose  hearts  are  drawn  forth 
to  desire  the  ordinances  of  Christ.  It  is  impossible  that  they 
should  be  taken  to  a  river  or  pond  and  immersed.  On  the  ground 
that  notliing  but  immersion  is  baptism,  all  these  persons  must  die 
without  the  ordinance.  I  have  baptized  a  devout  and  humble 
disciple  of  Christ  in  her  sick  room,  and  then  given  her  the  bread 
and  the  cup,  in  company  with  a  few  other  brethren  and  sisters 
assembled  around  that  bed  ;  and  it  was  one  of  the  most  solemn, 
heavenly  and  delightful  seasons  I  ever  enjoyed.  Now  has  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  designs  that  his  religion  shall  fill  the 
earth,  required  an  outward  form  that  cannot  be  universally  prac- 
ticed ?     It  cannot  be  so. 

There  is  another  consideration  :  baptism  by  immersion  is  not 
adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  the  occasion  on  which  it  is  usu- 
ally administered.  By  affusion,  it  may  be  administered  here  in 
the  house  of  God,  in  connection  with  the  other  ordinances  of  re- 
ligion, silently  and  solemnly,  and  without  that  distraction  of 
mind  attendant  upon  going  to  a  river  or  pond.  Here  it  can  be 
done  decently,  and  devoutly,  and  in  a  manner  which  is  calculated 
to  make  a  deep  impression  upon  every  soul  present,  and  to  point 


54  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

them  to  that  precious  blood  of  sprinkhng,  without  which  none 
can  see  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Another  consideration  is  this  ;  men  are  strongly  disposed  "  to 
overdo  in  the  externals  of  religion,  while  they  underdo,  and  per- 
haps do  little  or  nothing,  in  those  things"  which  constitute  the 
vilals  of  religion.  Thus  Peter,  "not  satisfied  with  that  degree 
of  washing  which  his  Master  judged  to  be  sufficient,  said, '  not  my 
feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head.'  "  The  mode. of  bap- 
tism by  affusion,  being  simple  and  unostentatious,  is  calculated 
to  promote  a  retiring,  humble  spirit,  and  to  discourage  pride  and 
ostentation ;  and  thus  to  advance  the  soul's  salvation,  the  dear- 
est interests  of  the  true  church,  and  the  glory  of  God.  These 
considerations,  taken  in  connection  with  the  meaning  of  baptizo, 
and  the  circumstances  attending  the  cases  of  Christian  bap- 
tism recorded  in  the  Bible,  are  entitled  to  serious  reflection,  and 
must  convince  every  unbiased  mind. 

We  will  now 

Y.  Consider  the  history  of  the  church  of  Christ  on  this  sub- 
ject, since  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 

The  question  here,  (as  on  the  other  arguments,)  is  this:  was 
immersion  considered  by  the  early  Christians  essential  to  bap- 
tism —  and  did  they  in  no  case  practice  any  mode  but  immersion? 
In  other  words :  was  the  mode  by  affusion  practiced  at  all,  in 
the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  and  has  it  been  practiced  ever 
since?  Proof  that  immersion  was  practiced,  does  not  meet  the 
question.  The  question  is  this  :  Did  the  Christian  church,  in  the 
early  ages,  and  in  later  times,  practice  nothing  but  immersion? 
This  being  the  real  question,  I  propose  to  show  that  baptism  by 
affusion  has  been  practiced  ever  since  the  Apostles'  day ;  and 
though  immersion  has  sometimes  been  prevalent,  yet  we  find  no 
evidence  that  immersion  was  the  onlt/  mode  practiced,  or  that  it 
ever  was  considered  essential  to  baptism,  till  after  the  reforma- 
tion of  the  sixteenth  century. 

Cave  stales,  that  the  primitive  Christians  thought  the  mar- 
tyrs "  sufficiently  qualified  for  heaven,  by  being  baptized  in  their 
own  blood."* 

In  the  time  of  Marcus  AureUus  Antoninus,  about  sixty  or  sev- 
enty years  after  the  Apostles,  a  distinguished  bishop  decided  in  a 

*  Prim.  Chris,  part  Ist,  chap.  10,  seventh  ed.  of  1728,  p.  191. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  55 

certain  case,  that  "  the  man  was  baptized  if  he  only  had  water 
poured  upon  him,"  &.C.* 

Irenaeu?,  born  about  the  time  the  Apostle  John  died,  spenks  of 
a  sect  of  Christians,  "who,"  he  says,  "baptized  by  an  affusion 
of  water  mixed  with  oil."t 

Alhanasius,  another  early  father,  speaks  of  a  sect  who  practiced 
"baptism  by  sprinkling  ;"+  {raniizomenon.) 

Lawrence,  who  became  a  Christian  about  fifty  years  after  the 
Apostles,  and  suffered  martyrdom  ;  a  little  while  before  he  suffer- 
ed, baptized  with  a  pitcher  of  water,  one  of  his  executioners."§ 

Novatian,  a  distinguished  philosopher,  became  a  Christian 
about  120  years  after  the  Apostles  ;  and,'  says  Eusebius,  the  eccle- 
siastical historian,  who  lived  not  long  after,  Novatian,  being  "vis- 
ited with  sickness,  baptism  was  administered  to  him,  according  to 
the  custom  of  those  times,  by  affusion  or  sprinkling."  || 

Eusebius  mentions  Basilides  also,  as  "  having  been  baptized  in 
prison."  < 

Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  a  warm-hearted  Christian,  and  a 
martyr  to  his  religion,  who  lived  about  150  years  after  the  Apos- 
tles, speaking  of  some  who  were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  quotes 
the  language  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  ;  "  and  then  he  adds,  "  Hence 
if  appears  that  sprinkling  is  of  equal  validity  with  the  salutary 
bath."l 

Dupin  states,  that  Constantino  the  Great,  "  being  clothed  with 
a  white  garment,  and  laid  upon  his  bed,  was  baptized  in  a  sol- 
emn manner  by  Eusebius."  ** 

"  [In  tlie  year  390,]  AureUus  Prudcntius,  a  man  of  consular 
dignity,  a  Christian  and  a  poet,  thus  sings  in  one  of  his  evening 
hymns  :  '  Worshipper  of  God,  remember  that  thou  didst  go  un- 
der the  {rorem  sanction)  holy  dews  of  the  font  and  laver ; '  in 
other  words,  '  that  thou  wast  sprinkled  in  baptism.' "tt 

"  The  Centuriators,  (quoting  from  Socrates,  Lib.  7,  Cap.  17,) 
tell  us  of  a  celebrated  font, '  out  of  which  {baptiza  to  aqua  super- 
fusa,)  the  water  is  poured  from  above  on  the  baptized  person.'" 

*  Walker's  Doc.  Bap.  ch.  10.  t  P.  Advers.  Ha^res.  Lib.  1,  ch.  23. 

t  P.  Oral.  3.  §  Wall's  His.  In.  Bap.  part  2,  p.  465. 

II  Euseb.  Eccl.  His.  Lib.  6,  Cap.  5  and  43,  which  now  lies  before  me. 
ir  P.  Opera  Cyp.  Lib.  2,  Epis.  7.        **  P.  Dupin  Eccl.  His.  vol.  2,  p.  84. 
tt  Walker  Doc.  Bap.  ch.  10- 


56  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

"  Gennadius  of  Marseiles,  [who  flourished  about  the  year  490,] 
says,  '  The  person  to  be  baptized  makes  confession  of  his  faith 
before  the  priest,'  and  after  confession,  he  is  'either  wetted  with 
water  or  pUuiged  into  it.'  "* 

"  [In  the  year  499,]  Clodovacus,  king  of  the  Franks,  was  bap- 
tized by  Remigius,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  not  by  immersion,  but 
{per  infusioneni  aquce)  by  the  pouring  of  water."t 

"  Bede  frequently  uses  the  term  tingo,  abhio,  perfimdo  aqua, 
in  relation  to  baptism  ;  and  represents  one  Herebaldus  speaking 
of  himself  as  baptized  in  this  way  :  '  1  was  sprinkled  with  wa- 
ter.'"! 

"  Walafridus  Strabo,  [who  flourished  about  the  year  850.]  says, 
'  many  have  been  baptized,  not  only  by  immersion,  but  also 
{desuper  fundendo)  by  pouring  water  on  them  fiom  above  ;  and 
they  may  still  be  so  baptized.'  "§ 

"  [In  the  year  858,]  Nicetas  Serronius  speaks  of  those  who 
have  been  baptized  by  pouring."|| 

Liudgerus  is  said  by  Mabillon  to  have  "baptized  a  little  infant, 
by  pouring  on  holy  water."^ 

Bernard,  A.  D.  1120,  speaks  of  baptism  as  administered  by 
pouring.** 

In  the  year  1140,  Gratian  speaks  of  baptism  as  administered 
by  sprinkling.  "  The  blessed  waters  with  which  men  are  sprin- 
kled, avails  to  their  sanctif]cation."tt 

About  the  year  1255,  Thomas  Aquinas  discussed  the  question, 
wdiether  immersion  be  of  the  necessity  of  baptism,  and  answers 
it  in  the  negative  ;  for,  says  he,  "  as  a  washing  with  water  may 
be  made,  not  only  by  immersion,  but  also  b}'^  aspersion  or  afliision, 
so  a  baptism  may  be  made  by  way  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  on 
water."tt 

Durant,  A.  D.  1280,  says,  "  Sometimes  baptism  is  given  by 
immersion,  so  that  the  whole  cliild  is  dipped  in  water ;  and  some- 
times it  is  given  bj'-  aspersion,  vvhon  the  child  is  sprinkled,  or 
water  is  poured  upon  it."§§ 

*  Wall  p.  4fi().  t  Walker  Doc.  Bap.  cli.  10  —  1.3. 

+  P.  Eccl.  lli.s.  Lib.  .-5.  Cap.  6.  §  P.  De  Rebus  Eccl.  Cap.  26,  p,  415. 

II  P.  Com.  on  Greg.  Ora.  40.  IT  P.  Acta  Sanctorum,  p.  2,  Cap.  7. 

**  P.  Epis.  77.  tt  P.  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  4. 

tt  Walker's  Doc.  Bap.  ch.  10.  §§  p.  De  llitu  Bapliznndi,  Cap.  2, 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  57 

Lynwood  says,  in  1422,  "  Baptism  may  be  given  by  pouring 
or  sprinkling."* 

About  the  same  time,  "  the  Synod  of  Angiers  speaks  of  dip- 
ping or  pouring  as  used  indiflferently  in  baptism."t 

Erasmus  says,  "  With  us  (the  Dutcli)  they  have  the  water 
poured  on  them  in  baptism. "t 

"  Martin  Bucer  says,  about  the  year  1520,  "  Ood  commanded 
unto  man  such  a  rite,  as  that  either  by  the  intinction,  ablution  or 
sprinkling  of  water,  they  should  receive  remission  of  sins."t 

"  Walaeus  says,  '  It  hath  always  been  iuditferent  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  whether  baptism  were  administered  by  a  single  or 
a  tri/ne  immersion,  or  Avhether  sprinkling  or  immersion  were 
used.'  "§ 

"  Danaeus  says,  '  At  this  day  they  who  are  to  be  baptized  are 
mostly  sprinkled  only  with  water,  and  not  dipped  into  it.'  "11 

"  Calvin  tells  us,  that  "  The  substance  of  baptism  being  retain- 
ed, the  church,  from  the  beginnings  enjoyed  a  liberty  of  using 
somewhat  different  rites."  And,  says  he,  "  Whether  the  person 
baptized  be  wholly  immersed,  and  whether  thrice  or  once ;  or 
whether  water  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no  im- 
portance."! 

"  Zelenus  says,  'Dipping  was  formerly  more  used,  especially 
in  the  hot  countries  of  Judea  ;  but  this  mode  was  not  universally 
practiced,  or  essential  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.'  "** 

"  Zanchius  says,  'As  in  a  matter  of  liberty  and  indifferency, 
the  church  sometimes  followed  one  ceremony,  and  sometimes  the 
other,  as  she  judged  most  expedient.'" ft 

Dr.  Doddridge,  speaking  of  the  first  century,  says,  "  I  sup- 
pose immersion  was  often,  though  not  constantly  used."U 

Reed  says,  "  We  do  know  that  dipping  and  sprinkling  were 
both  practiced  in  the  second  century  ;  and  each  practice  hath 
been  continued  from  that  period  to  the  present  time."§§ 

Hawes  says,  In  the  primitive  churches  baptism  "was  not  al- 
ways" administered  by   innncrsion.     "The  quantity  of  water 


*  Wall,  p.  469.  t  Wall's  His.  In.  Bap.  P.  2,  ch.  9,  p.  467. 

X  Com.  Epis.  Rom.  cli.  6.  §  Synop.  Theo.  Djsput.  44. 

II  Isagogo  Christiana  part  4,  Cap.  29,  p.  .522. 

IT  Passim  Institutes  &  vol.  3.  p.  .343.    **  Reed'3  Apol.  p.  113. 

tt  P.  Clark's  Scrip.  Grounds  of  In.  Bap.  p.  128. 

XX  Fam.  Expos.  1  Cor.  1  :  16.  §§  Apol  p.  239. 


58  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

used,  or  the  manner  of  applying  it,  was  not  then  deemed  essen- 
tial, nor  ought  it  to  be  so  considered  at  the  present  day."* 

Pond  says,  (see  Trea.  Chris,  Bap.  p  51,)  "Until  the  rise  of 
the  Anabaptists,  (as  they  were  called,)  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
I  find  no  account  of  any  church,  or  sect  of  Christians,  which 
held  that  immersion  was  essential  to  baptism.  Some,"  says  he, 
"seem  to  have  practiced  immersion,  (connected  with  various  idle 
ceremonies,)  uniformly,  except  in  cases  of  necessity ;  others  still, 
baptized  indifferently,  by  immersion,  pouring  or  sprinkling,  ac- 
cording to  circumstances ;  w^iile  all  agreed  that  immersion  was 
not  essential,  but  that  baptism  in  other  modes  was  equally 
valid."t 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  quote  further.  Here  we  have  the 
united  testimony  of  many  distinguished  men,  ecclesiastical  histo- 
rians and  others,  reaching  back  to  the  very  age  in  which  the 
Apostles  lived,  that  baptism  by  affusion  has  always,  for  1800 
years,  been  practiced  in  the  Christian  church.  In  view  of  these 
testimonies,  my  hearers,  "  you  will  be  able  to  form  your  judg- 
ment, as  to  the  opinions  and  practices  which,  in  different  ages, 
have  prevailed  in  relation  to  the  mode  of  baptism."  For  myself, 
I  can  entertain  no  doubt  on  the  subject ;  and  I  see  not  how  any 
unprejudiced  mind  can  doubt. 

I  will  now  sum  up  the  arguments  which  have  been  presented 
in  these  two  discourses, 

1st.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  design  of  baptism,  is  to  rep- 
resent the  purification  of  the  soul,  and  our  ingrafting  into  Christ 
by  the  affusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  this  design  may  be 
evidently,  appropriately,  and  impressively  set  forth  in  this  ordi- 
nance, affusion  must  be  the  mode  of  administering  it.  This  po- 
sition has  been  established  by  Scripture  evidence  which  seems 
unanswerable, 

*  Tiib.  Mem.  Pil.  p.  29. 

t  How  do  the  tidvocitef?  of  exclusive  immersion  meet  all  this  historical  evi- 
dence ?  I  reply  —  they  cite  Mosheim,  Milner  and  others,  to  say  that  immersion 
was  practiced  in  the  early  ages.  It  is  true,  Mosheim  does  say,  (vol.  1,  p.  105, 
and  elsewhere,)  baptism  was  performed  in  the  first  centuries  by  immersion  ;  but 
he  does  not  say  that  immersion  was  the  only  mode,  neither  does  IMilner.  Again; 
they  quote  Vena;ma,  King,  and  other  moderns,  who  give  it  as  their  opinion  that 
immersion  was  the  ancient  mode  practiced.  But  how  does  this  invalidate  the  tes- 
timonies above  cited  ? 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  59 

It  has  been  shown, 

2nd.  That  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  is  to  sprinkle, 
to  pour,  to  ivash,  lo  immerse. 

This  position  has  been  estabhshed  by  an  appeal  to  tlie  opinion 
of  sixty  lexicographers,  critics,  and  Greek  classic  scholars,  as  to 
the  definition  of  the  word  ;  and  an  examination  of  the  use  of  the 
word  among  ancient  Greek  writers  —  and  of  its  use  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament.  It  was  shown  that  these  sixty 
witnesses  all  define  baptizo —  to  wash  —  to  pour  —  to  sprinkle, 
as  well  as  to  immerse  ;  and  that  this  definition  is  fully  and  am- 
ply sustained  by  the  ancient  Greek  writers,  and  by  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  Peter  and  Paul. 
The  evidence  from  the  New  Testament,  that  best  of  all  Lexicons, 
is  clear,  full  and  decisive.  It  appears,  also,  that  if  our  blessed 
Lord  had  designed  to  confine  the  ordinance  to  any  one  mode,  he 
might  have  specified  the  mode  by  the  use  of  the  word  dnpto,  to 
dip  —  loiw,  to  wash  —  ekcheo,  to  pour  —  or  rantizo,  to  sprinkle  : 
—  as  neither  Christ  nor  the  Apostles  have  used  either  of  these 
words  with  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  but  have  uni- 
formly used  baptizo,  a  word  which  signifies  the  application  of 
water  either  by  sprinkling,  washing,  pouring  or  immersing,  the 
conclusion  is  clear  and  decisive,  that  they  designed  to  leave  the 
church  to  practice  either  of  these  modes,  as  should  seem  good  to 
her  members.  It  was  further  shown  that  when  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  designate  the  act  of  dipping  or  immersing  they  use  the 
word  bapto,  and  not  baptizo,  a  plain  proof  that  they  did  iiot  con- 
sider baptizo  as  designating  this  act  with  sufficient  definiteness  ; 
but  rather  as  more  generally  signifying  other  modes  of  applying 
water.  It  was  shown,  moreover,  that  though  the  word  baptizo 
is  used  (with  its  derivatives)  eighty  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
fifty-seven  of  which  refer  to  persons  ;  yet  the  translators  of  the 
Bible  have  never  translated  it  immerse,  —  but  when  they  have 
translated  it,  they  have  used  the  word  wash,  or  some  other  word 
which  does  not  signify  a  total  immersion.  —  These  arguments 
and  facts  establish  the  position  upon  solid  rock,  that  the  word 
baptizo  signifies  affusion  as  well  as  immersion. 

It  has  been  shown, 

3d.  That  the  circumstances  attending  those  cases  of  baptism 
which  are  recorded  in  the  Bible,  furnish  no  conclusive  proof  that 
immersion  was  practiced  in  a  single  instance  —  but  contrariwise. 


60  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

they  do  furnish  conclusive  proof  that  in  most  of  the  recorded 
cases,  afiusion  must  have  been  the  mode,  and  that  in  all  of  them 
it  was  probably  the  mode.  Here  the  baptisms  of  John  —  the 
baptism  of  our  blessed  Lord — of  the  three  thousand  —  of  Cor- 
nelius and  his  family — of  Paul  —  of  the  Eunuch  —  of  the 
Jailer  and  his  family  —  and  the  multitudes  baptized  by  Christ 
and  the  Apostles  were  examined,  and  shown  to  furnish  strong, 
some  of  them  unanswerable  proof  that  affusion  was  commonly,  if 
not  always,  the  apostolic  mode. 

It  has  been  shown, 

4th.  That  the  allusions  in  Scripture  to  this  ordinance,  and 
several  considerations  connected  with  the  design  of  its  present  and 
future  universal  prevalence  furnish  striking  confirmatory  evidence 
of  the  foregoing  conclusions. 

It  has  been  shown, 

5th.  That  immersion  never  was  considered  essential  to  the 
ordinance  previous  to  the  sixteenth  century,  and  that  though  im- 
mersion has  been  more  or  less  practiced,  affusion  has  also  been  al- 
ways practiced  in  every  age  since  the  Apostles'  day. 

And  now,  my  dear  hearers,  what  say  you  of  these  truths?  Are 
the  views  of  this  church,  and  of  all  Congregational,  and  all  other 
Peedobaptist  churches,  correct  and  scriptural  in  relation  to  this  or- 
dinance, or  not '?  Who  are  right ;  they  who  tell  us  there  is  but 
one  mode  of  being  baptized,  and  that  unless  we  are  immersed, 
they -will  shut  the  door  of  Christian  communion  against  us?  or 
we,  who  hold  with  the  Bible,  and  with  the  Apostles,  and  with  the 
Christian  ci^urch  in  all  ages,  that  the  mode  of  baptism  may  be 
indifferently,  either  by  affusion  or  immersion  ;  and  that  upon  this 
broad  basis  all  evaiigelical  Christians  who  hold  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Bible,  should  commune  together  at  the  table  of 
their  common  Lord  ?  Who  preaches  and  holds  the  truth,  and 
who  is  engaged  in  vindicating  Christian  baptism  and  the  cause 
of  God  ?  And  who,  coming  to  the  touchstone  of  the  unerring 
word,  is  weighed  in  the  balances  and  found  wanting?  Judge 
ye.  And  may  you  "all  be  baptized  by  one  Spirit  into  one  body," 
and  so  be  fitted  for  that  kingdom  where  is  "one  fold  and  one 
Shepherd." 


LECTURE    III. 

SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

aUESTION  STATED.  — IDENTITY  OF  THE  CHURCH,  AND  OF  THE  COVENANT 
UNDER  THE  TWO  DISPENSATIONS.— CHILDREN  UNDER  BOTH  HAVE  A 
PECULIAR  RELATION  TO  THE  CHURCH,  A^D  ARE  ENTITLED  TO  THE  RITE 
ESTABLISHING  THIS  RELATION BAPTISM  IS  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  CIR- 
CUMCISION.—THE  INSTRUCTION  AND  PRACTICE  OP  CHRIST  AND  OF  THE 
APOSTLES ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 

MATT.   XXVIII.    18,  19. 

In  view  of  the  text,  I  have  remarked  on  a  former  occasion, 
that  in  Uiis  commission,  Christ  instituted  the  ordinance  of  Chris- 
tian baptism  —  and  that  the  language  of  this  commission  sug- 
gests two  inquiries : 

What  is  the  mode  of  Christian  Baptism? 

Who  are  the  subjects  of  Christian  Baptism  ? 

Having  considered  the  Tnode  —  I  propose  now  to  consider  the 
subjects  of  this  ordinance.  Who  are  the  proper  subjects  or 
persons  to  receive  Christian  Baptism  ? 

My  first  object  will  be  to  state  definitely  and  fairly,  the  real 
question  to  be  discussed.  The  question  is  not  whether  unbap- 
tized  adults  who  give  no  evidence  of  faith  and  repentance  are 
proper  suljjects  of  baptism  ;  we  agree  with  the  opposers  of  Infant 
Baptism,  that  thei/  are  not;  and  we  agree  with  them  in  adopt- 
ing the  full  force  of  those  texts  of  Scripture  which  enjoin  upon 
adults,  repentance  and  faith,  before  baptism.  Neither  is  it  the 
question  whether  those  unbaptized  adults,  who  give  evidence  of 
true  piety,  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism :  we  insist  they 
are.  Tho  only  difference  between  the  opposers  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism and  ourselves,  is  this:  We  affirm  and  insist,  that  chil- 
dren WHO  ARE  UNDER  THE  CARE  OF  BELIEVING,  COVENANT- 
ING PARENTS,  ARE  PROPER  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  TlIIS 
THEY    DENY. 


62  SUBJECTS    OF   BAPTISM, 

This  is  the  precise  point  of  difference  ;  this  is  the  real  question 
in  debate  :  — •  Are  the  children  of  visible  believers  fit  subjects  of 
baptism,  or  are  they  not?  This  being  the  simple  question,  it 
follows  plainly,  that  all  those  texts  which  have  reference  only  to 
the  bajitisni  of  adult  believers,  furnish  no  proof,  either  way,  on 
the  question  of  our  present  consideration :  inasmuch  as  they 
have  no  reference  to  this  question.  As  the  whole  controversy 
about  the  baptism  of  children  depends  materially  upon  a  clear 
understanding  of  this  point,  let  me  give  a  short  illustration  of  it. 
I  inquire  of  an  opposer  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  Is  the  young  child  of 
a  behever  a  proper  subject  of  baptism  ?  He  answers.  No.  I 
ask,  Why  so  ?  He  replies,  the  Bible  says,  repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized :  if  thou  believest  thou  mayest.  I  rejoin  ;  your  answer  is 
not  in  point.  I  inquired,  is  a  child  a  proper  subject  of  baptism? 
You  reply  by  telling  me  that  an  adult  who  repents  and  believes 
may  be  baptized.  Now,  as  I  asked  no  question  about  adtdt 
baptism,  the  answer  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  Were  I  to  ask; 
Is  a  child  a  creature  of  the  rational  kind  ?  it  would  not  be  a  per- 
tinent, proper  reply,  to  tell  me  that  adults  are  rational  creatures. 
No  answer  can  be  a  good  and  proper  answer,  unless  it  have  ref- 
erence to  the  question  proposed.  Hence,  when  I  inquire,  is  a 
child  of  a  visible  believer  a  proper  subject  of  baptism,  and  my 
opponent  quotes  a  dozen  texts  to  show  the  propriety  of  adult 
baptism,  his  texts  do  not  touch  the  question,  and  therefore  they 
furnish  no  proof  either /or  or  against  the  baptism  of  children. 
This  illustration  will  make  it  obvious  to  all,  that  inasmuch  as 
the  simple  and  single  question  is.  Are  the  children  of  believers 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  ?  It  is  plain  that  all  those  texts  which 
speak  of  the  baptism  of  adult  believers,  furnish  no  proof,  either 
way,  on  the  question  now  before  us.  With  this  illustration  of 
the  point  in  question,  we  affirm,  and  shall  show,  that  children 
who  are  under  the  care  of  believing,  covenanting  parents,  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism.  The  Bible  proof  of  this  position  is 
full  and  conclusive. 

The  arguments  upon  which  I  rely  are  these: 

I.  The  CONSTITUTION  and  perpetuity  of  the  church  of 
God. 

II.  The  instruction  given  by  Jesus  Christ,  united  with 
his  TREATMENT  of  chikUcn. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  63 

III.  The  INSTRUCTION  given  by  the  Apostles,  united  with 
their  practice. 

IV.  The  EARLY  HISTORY  of  the  church  confirms  the  fore- 
going arguments,  and  therefore  furnishes  additional  proof  of  our 
position. 

To  the  consideration  of  these /o?^r  arguments  I  ask  your  care- 
ful and  unbiased  attention. 

The  sum  of  them  all  may  be  briefly  expressed  thus :  The 
COVENANT  which  God  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  ex- 
pressly included  infants,  and  the  seal  of  that  covenant  was  ap- 
plied to  infants  by  the  express  command  of  God.  We  believing 
Gentiles,  (and  all  other  believers,)  are  the  seed  for  whom  the  cov- 
enant with  Abraham  was  made:  and  therefore  our  infants,  as 
well  as  his,  are  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  covenant,  and 
subjects  of  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  by  virtue  of  the  original  prom- 
ise made  to  Abraham,  inasmuch  as  that  promise  has  never 
been  revoked.  This  covenant  was  renewed  at  the  Red  Sea ; 
and  again  in  the  plains  of  Moab ;  and  still  infants  are  expressly 
included.  All  along  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  children  are 
comprehended  with  their  parents,  in  all  covenant  transactions  be- 
tween God  and  his  people,  and  the  token  of  the  covenant  is  con- 
stantly applied  to  the  children.  The  Prophets  foretold  that  it  would 
be  so  still  in  gospel  days  :  that  "  Christ  should  gather  the  lambs 
with  his  arm,"  —  that  God  would  "  pour  his  Spirit  upon  the  off- 
spring of  his  people  who  should  be  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the 
Lord,  and  their  offspring  with  them."  Christ,  when  he  came, 
took  infants  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them,  and  directed  that 
they  should  be  brought  to  him,  because  of  such  is  his  kingdom ; 
into  which  persons  are  to  be  admitted  by  being  born  of  water. 
He  taught  his  Apostles  to  receive  infants  in  his  name,  and  treat 
them  as  his  disciples,  (Matt.  18 :  5,  6,)  and  when  he  gave  them 
his  baptismal  commission,  he  expressed  it  in  terms  of  such  uni- 
versal import,  as  must  obviously  include  infants  ;  and  the  Apos- 
tles, knowing  what  had  been  the  constant  usage  concerning  in- 
fants, and  how  Christ  had  ever  treated  them,  could  not  but 
understand  the  commission  as  including  the  children  of  believers. 
Accordingly,  when  the  Apostles,  soon  after,  urged  the  inquiring 
and  convicted  multitude  to  be  baptized,  they  placed  their  right 
to  baptism  on  the  ground  of  that  promise  or  covenant,  which  be- 
longed equally  to   them  and  their  children.      And  when  the 


64  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

Apostles  baptized  the  head  of  a  family,  in  his  own  house,  they 
baptized  his  family  with  him.  They  constantly  taught,  more- 
over, that  the  covenant  God  made  with  Abraham,  of  which  cir- 
cumcision was  the  seal,  is  the  same  covenant  which  we  are  now 
under,  and  that  its  blessings  are  come  upon  us  Gentiles — that 
the  Gentiles  are  grafted  into  the  same  stock  from  which  the  Jews 
were  broken  off — that  children  are  to  be  treated  as  holy,  in  vir- 
tue of  the  faith  of  their  parents —  that  baptism  is  the  Christian 
circumcision  ;  and  therefore  they  who  are  baptized  into  Christ,  are 
freed  from  the  literal  circumcision,  and  all  other  ancient  rites  — 
and  that  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  under  the  gospel,  both  male  and 
female  are  one  in  privilege.  And  hence  it  was  the  practice  of 
the  church  immediately  after  the  Apostles  ;  and  this  practice  has 
been  continued  to  the  present  day,  (and  doubtless  will  be  contin- 
ued to  the  end  of  the  world,)  to  baptize  the  little  children  of  vis- 
ible believers.  And  thus  we  see  that  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism 
is  founded  upon  the  unerring  truth  of  God  ;  and  being  thus  found- 
ed on  the  Rock  of  ages,  it  cannot  be  overthrown. 

That  the  children  of  believing,  covenanting  parents  are  the 
proper  subjects  of  baptism,  I  argue, 

I.  From  the  constitution  and  perpetuity  of  the  church 
of  God. 

That  this  argument,  thus  briefly  stated,  may  be  made  perfectly 
clear  to  the  apprehension  of  every  mind,  we  will  resolve  it  into 
four  particulars,  to  wit : 

First.  The  church  of  God  is  the  same  now  with  the  church 
of  Israel ;  and  as  then  children  were  visibly  dedicated  to  God, 
they  should  be  now,  unless  the  law  enjoining  their  dedication  is 
revoked. 

Second.  The  covenant  of  the  Israelitish  church,  (that  which 
God  made  with  Abraham,)  the  token  of  which  was  applied  to 
children,  is  still  the  covenant  of  the  gospel  church  ;  hence  the 
covenant  remaining  the  same,  visible  believers  are  still  under 
ohligations  to  apply  the  gospel  token  to  their  children. 

Third.  Under  the  Israelitish  church,  the  cliildren  of  believ- 
ing parents  in  covenant,  were  treated  as  holding  a  peculiar  cove- 
nant relation  to  the  church  :  —  the  church  and  the  covenant 
remaining  the  same,  they  still  hold  the  same  relation,  and  there- 
fore are  the  proper  subjects  of  that  rite,  by  which  this  relation  is 
established. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  65 

Fourth.  Baptism  under  the  gospel  cliurch  is  substituted  for 
circumcision.  Circumcision  was  applied  to  the  cliildrcn  of  believ- 
ers by  the  command  of  God  :  that  command  now  hinds  believ- 
ers in  covenant  to  see  that  baptismal  water  is  applied  to  their 
children. 

That  these  propositions  are  amply  sustained  by  the  Bible,  must 
be  manifest  to  all  unbiased  minds,  who  have  given  this  holy 
book  a  careful  and  enlightened  perusal.  To  such  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  dwell  upon  them.  As,  however,  some  of  my  hearers 
may  desire  to  see  them  proved,  I  will  detain  you  upon  them  a 
few  moments. 

First.  The  church  is  the  sa7ne  now  with  the  church  of  Israel. 
As  children  were  then  visibly  dedicated  to  God,  they  should  be 
now,  unless  the  law  enjoining  their  dedication  is  revoked. 

Among  the  opposcrs  of  Infant  Baptism,  it  is  very  common  to 
speak  of  the  church  under  the  gospel,  as  entirely  distinct  from 
the  church  in  Old  Testament  days  ;  and  to  hold  up  the  idea, 
that  when  Christ  appeared  on  earth,  a  uew  church  was  founded, 
and  the  old  one  entirely  abolished.  This  idea  has  no  support  in 
the  word  of  God.  Both  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments, 
the  ancient  church  is  spoken  of,  (not  as  abolished  and  succeeded 
by  another,)  but  as  visited,  co7nforted,  pjirijied,  raised  up,  and 
gloriously  renovated,  revived  and  enlarged.  I  do  not  say 
there  have  been  no  changes  whatever—  there  have  been  changes. 
While  believers  were  looking  forward  to  a  promised  Messiah ; 
types,  offerings,  and  bloody  sacrifices  were  needful,  which,  since 
his  coming  have  been  taken  out  of  the  way:  as  saith  the  Apostle, 
(Heb.  10  :  9,)  "  He  takcth  away  the  first,"  that  is,  the  oflerings 
and  sacrifices  for  sin,  prescribed  by  the  law,  "that  he  may  estab- 
lish the  second,"  that  is,  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus,  once 
for  all.*     But  the  abolition  of  those  rites,  (the  Sinai  covenant,) 

*  In  the  seventli,  eighth  and  tenth  chapters  of  Hebrews,  where  Paul  shows  the 
superior  excellency  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ  to  that  of  the  law,  he  refers  to  the 
national  covenant  made  with  Israel  at  Sinai,  and  contrasts  tliat  covenant  with 
the  more  spiritual  dispens;ition,  under  the  gospel  ;  which  dispensation  he  calls 
a  netv  covenant  —  and  with  reference  to  this  Sinai  covenant  he  says,  "  Now  that 
which  decayeth  and  waxeth  old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away."  And  again,  "  He 
taketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the  second."  Some  of  the  opposers 
of  Infant  Baptism,  in  their  desire  to  get  rid  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  have  ap- 
plied this  language  of  Paul  to  that  covenant  ;  but  nothing  can  be  more  erroneous. 
Paul   is  speaking  here  of  the  oflerings  and  sacrifices  prescribed  under  the  Sinai 

9 


66  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

and  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  did  not  affect  the 
identity  or  sameness  of  the  church.  The  true  church  on  earth, 
cmhodies  ail  true  religion,  and  all  tlie  real  friends  of  God  existing 
in  the  world.  Those  who  love  God  and  do  his  pleasure,  have 
alway;3  sustained  the  same  relation  to  God  and  each  other,  and 
they  have  always  belonged  to  the  same  holy  family,  and  this 
famil3Ms  the  church  ;  and  this  church,  in  all  her  distinctive  char- 
acteristics, has  in  all  periods  been  the  same. 

1.  In  Old  and  New  Testament  times,  the  church  has  professed 
the  true  religion;  and  true  religion  is  the  same  in  all  peri- 
ods. There  never  have  been  two  wa3^s  to  heaven.  From  tha 
day  Adam  fell,  to  this  hour,  the  only  path  to  glory  above  has 
been  through  the  blessed  and  only  Redeemer.  The  religion  of 
the  Bible,  tliat  religion  which  the  church  has  always  professed, 
is  one  and  the  same.  There  is  not  one  religion  taught  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  another  in  the  New.  The  Israelites,  who 
had  (he  Old  Testament,  professed  the  same  religion  as  Christians 
who  have  both  Testaments.  The  doctrines  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  unfolded  with  greater  clearness,  minuteness  and  power, 
but  in  all  fundamentals,  they  are  the  very  same  doctrines  which 
are  taught  in  the  Old.  The  requireinents  of  the  Gospel  are  the 
same  as  those  of  the  Law.  The  rules  of  discipline  in  the  church, 
and  the  promises  to  God's  people,  are  essentially  the  same  in  both 
dispensations.  And  all  must  admit  that  the  religion  of  the  Bible 
consists  in  its  doctrines  —  its  requirements  —  its  j)ro?nises,  and 
{he  discipli7ie  it  enjoins  upon  those  who  embrace  it.  Hence,  if 
the  church,  under  both  dispensations,  has  professed  the  same  re- 
ligion, she  has  ever  been  the  sai?ie  church. 

2.  Again  :  —  A  multitude  of  passages  applied  to  the  ancient 
church  in  the  Old  Testament,  are  applied  to  the  Christian  church 
in  the  New.  For  example  :  God  said  to  the  ancient  church,  "I 
will  walk  among  you,  and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my 
people  !"  (Lev.  26:  12.)  Paul  quotes  this  very  language  thus  : 
(2  Cor.  6  :  16  —  18.)  "  As  God  has  said,  I  will  dwell  in  them,  and 

covenant,  and  showing  how  much  better  is  the  new  covenant  or  oflering  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  once  for  all.  That  he  does  not  refer  in  these  passages  to  the  cove- 
nant of  works,  of  which  Adam  was  the  surety, —  nor  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  of 
v\'hich  Christ  was  the  surely,  and  which  was  ratified  with  Abraham,  and  is  an 
everlasting  covenant,  is  so  evident  as  to  need  no  comment. 

In  support  of  these  views,  see  Clarke,  Scott,  Henry,  Doddridge  andMcKnight, 
in  loco. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM,  67 

walk  in  them,  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people  : 
and  I  will  be  a  Father  unto  you,  and  ye  shall  be  my  sons  and 
daughters,  saitli  the  Lord  Almighty.  Having  these  promises, 
let  us  cleanse  ourselves."  Tiie  Apostle  surely  considered  the 
Corinthians  as  belonging  to  the  same  church  as  those  did  to 
whom  these  promises  were  originally  made.  Declarations  of 
this  kind  are  met  with  continually  in  both  Testaments. 

3.  Again  :  —  In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Romans,  Paul  shows 
for  a  certainty,  the  identity  of  the  church  under  both  dispensa- 
tions. Here  he  teaches  us  that  believing  Gentiles  are  grafted 
into  the  same  olive  tree,  from  which  the  unbelieving  Jews  were 
broken  off,  and  into  which,  the  restored  Jews  shall  be  grafted 
again  !  By  this  olive  tree,  plainly  we  are  to  understand  the  visible 
church,  from  which  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off — into 
which  the  believing  Gentiles  were  grafted,  and  into  which  also 
the  posterity  of  Abraham,  when  restored,  will  at  length  be  grafted 
again.  Paul,  therefore,  in  this  chapter  estabhshes  the  sameness 
of  the  church  of  God  under  both  dispensations,  beyond  all  con- 
troversy. In  Ephesians  also,  the  Apostle  settles  this  point,  when 
he  says,  "  Ye  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and 
Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone." 

4.  Again  :  —  The  visible  church,  under  both  dispensations, 
has  been  equally  and  truly  the  church  of  Christ.  Under  both, 
she  has  been  represented  as  the  bride  of  Christ,  the  house  of 
Christ,  the  jlock  of  Christ,  the  'projierty  of  Christ  —  and  these 
representations  estabhsh  the  position,  that  the  church  has  been 
the  same  church  under  both  dispensations. 

5.  Again  :  —  The  case  of  the  Apostles  proves  the  identity  of 
the  church.  During  Christ's  public  ministry,  they  were  mem- 
bers of  the  church  of  Israel.  They  attended  the  worship  and  or- 
dinances of  that  church.  The  very  night  Christ  was  betrayed 
into  the  hands  of  men,  they  partook  of  the  passover,  a  sacrament 
of  the  old  dispensation.  But  immediately  after  Christ's  ascension, 
we  find  these  same  men  pillars  in  the  gospel  church.  Now  were 
they  cut  off  from  one  church  and  formed  into  another?  If  so, 
how,  and  when,  and  by  whom  was  it  done  ?  Nothing  can  be 
more  obvious  than  the  fact,  that  the  Apostles  belonged  to  the 
same  church  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  afterwards,  to  which 
they  belonged  the  night  they  ate  the  passover  supper  with  Christ, 
and  ever  before  that  night,  after  they  became  believers. 


68  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

Hence  we  conclude,  from  these  five  considerations,  that  the 
Bible  establishes  the  doctrine,  that  the  church  is  the  same  church 
now  that  she  was  in  the  days  of  Israel.  The  church  is  called, 
as  Isaiah  predicted  she  would  be,  (62:  2,)  by  a  new  name, 
and  lives  under  a  new  and  brighter  dispensation  :  but  in  all  essen- 
tial and  fundamental  particulars,  she  is  the  sarne  church  perpetu- 
ated, which  God  set  up  in  days  of  old,  and  she  will  remain  the 
same  through  all  periods  of  time.  Now  all  who  believe  the  Bi- 
ble agree,  that  the  little  children  of  believers  in  the  ancient 
church,  were  visibly  dedicated  to  God  by  his  express  command. 
It  follows  then,  the  church  continuing  the  same,  either  that  they 
ought  stiil  to  be  visibly  dedicated  to  God,  or  that  the  command 
enjoining  this  duty  has  been  revoked.  But  this  command  has 
never  been  revoked.  Jesus  Christ  did  not  revoke  it  —  the  Apos- 
tles did  not  revoke  it  —  it  is  still  in  force,  and  binding  upon  cove- 
nanting parents.  Their  children  are  now,  as  they  were  formerly, 
the  proper  subjects  of  that  visible  dedication  of  which  circum- 
cision was,  and  of  which  baptism  now  is,  the  acknowledged 
token. 

Secondly.  The  covknant  of  the  Israelitish  church,  (that 
which  God  made  with  Abraham,)  the  token  of  which  was  ap- 
plied to  children,  is  still  the  covenant  of  the  gospel  church.  Hence, 
the  covenant  remainining  the  same,  visible  believers  are  still 
bound  to  a|)ply  the  gospel  token,  baptism,  to  their  children. 

We  might  infer  that  the  cove7iant  of  the  visible  church  has 
been  the  same  under  both  dispensations,  from  the  fact  that  the 
church  is  constituted  by  its  covenant,  and  that  it  has  ever  been 
Ihe  same  church.  But  as  the  Bible  furnishes  direct  and  plain 
proof  on  this  subject,  we  will  refer  you  to  the  "thus  saith  the 
Lord."  The  covenant  of  the  clmrch  which  God  made  with 
Abraham,  is  recorded  in  Gen.  17:  7  —  14 ;  "I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant ;  to  be  a  God  unto  thee 
and  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  and  thy 
seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a  stranger ;  all  the  land 
of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  possession,  and  I  will  be  their  God. 
And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  Thou  shall  keep  my  covenant, 
therefore,  thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations. 
This  is  my  covenant  which  yc  shall  keep  between  me  and  you, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee :  every  man-cliild  among  you  shall  be 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  09 

circumcised.  And  yc  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin 
and  it  shall  he  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And 
he  that  is  eight  days  old,  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every 
man  child  in  your  generations,  he  that  is  born  in  the  house,  or 
bought  with  money  of  any  stranger  which  is  not  of  thy  seed. 
He  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  thy 
money,  must  needs  be  circumcised :  and  my  covenant  shall  be 
in  your  flesh  for  an  everlastiii;^  covenant.  And  the  uncircum- 
ciscd  man-child,  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised, 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  ofli'  from  his  people  :  he  hath  broken  my 
covenant.  And,  (verses  26,  27,ji  n  the  selfsame  day  was  Abra- 
ham circumcised,  and  Ishmael,  his  son.  And  all  the  men  of  his 
house,  born  in  the  house  and  bought  with  money  of  the  stranger, 
were  circumcised  with  him.  And,  (Gen.  21 :  4,)  Abraham  cir- 
cumcised his  sou  Isaac,  being  eight  days  old,  as  God  had  com- 
manded him." 

This  covenant,  you  observe,  extends  to  infants  as  well  as 
others,  and  to  all  succeeding  generations  of  his  descendants,  and 
to  the  stranger  who  was  not  of  his  family.  It  was  a  sjnritiial 
covenant;  and  its  capital  promise  was  this  —  I  will  be  a  God 
TO  THEE  AND  THY  SEED  AFTER  THEE.  It  indeed  Contained 
a  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  for  a  possession  ;  but  the  great 
blessing  promised  was  in  these  words  —  "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee 
and  thy  seed  after  thee,"  So  it  was  repeatedly  explained  after- 
wards. See  Deut.  29:  9  — 15,  &c.  Now  the  Apostle  Paul 
shows  us  that  this  is  the  very  covenant  made  by  God  with  the 
church  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Paul  represents  Abra- 
ham as  the  fatlier  of  all  believers  —  and  all  believers,  as  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham.  And  explains  this  representation,  by  refering 
to  the  Abraha7mc  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal. 
Saith  he,  (Rom.  4:  11,)  "And  Abraham  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had, 
yet  being  uncircumcised,  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them 
that  believe^  though  they  be  not  circtuncised  ;  that  righteousness 
might  be  imputed  unto  them  also."  That  is,  Abraham  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  that  he 
might  be  the  father  of  all  believers,  and  that  they  might  be  his 
spiritual  children.  Paul  justifies  his  language  in  calling  Abra- 
ham the  father  of  all  believers,  and  them  his  children,  by  quoting 
a  part  of  the  original  covenant   with  Abraham  ;    (verse  16 ;) 


70  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

"  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace,  to  the  end,  the 
pro7/iise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed,  not  to  that  only  wiiich  is 
of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham, 
who  is  ih&fathej-  of  vs  all;  as  it  is  written,  (Gen.  17,)  'I  have 
mat3e  thee  a  father  of  many  nations.'  "  So  again,  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  (chap.  3 :  17,)  Paul  saith,  "  This  I  say,  that 
the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the 
law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  dis- 
annul, that  it  should  make  the  p7'o?Jiise  of  none  effect."  Paul 
here  declares  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  not  abolished 
with  the  Levitical  law  — ■  and  that  it  was  a  gospel  covenant,  "  con- 
firmed," says  he,  "  of  God  iti  Chi'ist ;''''  and  thus  it  was  a  cove- 
nant of  promise  to  all  the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham.  "  Know 
ye  therefore,"  says  he,  "that  they  which  are  oi  faith,  the  same 
are  the  children  of  Abraham."  (Verse  29.)  "  And  if  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promise."  And  further  to  show  that  all,  of  both  sexes,  are  in- 
cluded in  this  covenant,  and  have  equal  privileges,  he  says,  (verse 
28,)  "  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor 
free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus."  Hence  the  Apostle  has  established  the  matter,  that  this 
covenant  which  God  made  with  the  ancient  church  is  the  same 
covenant  which  is  in  force  under  the  gospel,  and  it  will  continue 
in  force  while  the  world  shall  last.*  Though  the  opposers  of  In- 
fant Baptism  may  speak  of  the  covenant  as  no  longer  in  force, 
and  as  an  "old  worn  out  vessel,  that  has  done  all  the  work  as- 
signed her,"  yet  it  will  nevertheless  exist,  for  it  is  everlasting, 
and  the  eternal  God  will  not  suffer  it  to  fail.  This  covenant 
being  the  only  covenant  of  grace  which  God  has  ever  made  with 
men ;  the  terms  and  extent  of  it  must  continue  as  they  were 
originally,  unless  they  are  revoked  or  modified  by  their  Author. 

*  Calvin  says,  (book  4,  chap.  Ifi,)  "  The  covenant  which  God  once  made 
with  Abraham,  continues  as  much  in  force  with  Christians  in  the  present  day,  as 
it  did  formerly  with  the  .Tows;  unless  we  suppose  that  Christ,  by  his  advent,  di- 
minished or  curtailed  the  grace  of  the  Father,  which  is  execrable  blasphemy." 
Agiiin  he  says,  "The  principal  promises  of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with 
Israel,  were  spiritual,  and  had  reference  to  eternal  life.  At  the  same  time, 
when  he  promised  eternal  blessedness  to  Abraham,  he  added  another  promise 
respecting  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan;  but  the  spiritual  promise 
may  always  be  considered  as  the  source  and  foundation  to  which  others  may  be 
referred." 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  / i 

This  he  has  never  done.  Now  this  covenant  included  infants 
as  well  as  adults ;  and  as  God  has  never  made  any  declaration, 
excluding  them,  they  are  still  comprised  in  it.  As  a  token  of 
their  covenant  relation,  anciently  they  were  circumcised  ;  bap- 
tism is  the  gospel  circumcision ;  under  the  gospel,  then,  they 
should  be  baptized. 

Thirdly.  In  the  ancient  church,  the  children  of  believers 
were  treated  as  holding  a  pecuhar  covenant  relation  to  the  visible 
church.  The  church  now  being  the  same,  and  the  covenant 
the  same,  it  follows  obviously,  that  the  children  of  believers  still 
hold  a  pecuhar  covenant  relation  to  the  visible  church ;  and  there- 
fore, that  they  are  the  proper  subjects  of  that  r^7e,  by  which  this 
relation  is  established.  Accordingly,  Jeremiah,  foretelling  the 
final  restoration  of  the  Jews,  and  their  state  and  privileges,  when 
incorporated  with  the  gO;?pel  church  ;  uses  this  remarkably  defi- 
nite language,  (30.  20,)  "And  their  children  also  shall  be  as 
aforetime,  and  their  congregation  shall  be  established  before  me, 
and  1  will  punish  all  that  oppress  them!" 

Fourthly.  Baptism  in  the  gospel  church  is  substituted  in 
the  place  of  circumcision  in  the  ancient  church.  This  is  evident 
fi"om  the  fact  that  the  church  has  been  the  same  under  both  dis- 
pensations. Circumcision  was  anciently  what  baptism  is  now, 
an  instituted,  prerequisite  to  a  regular,  visible  connection  with 
the  church.  And  if  the  church  remains  the  same,  the  conclu- 
sion is  obvious,  that  baptism  is  substituted  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision. This  is  evident  from  the  fact  also,  that  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  is  still  the  gospel  covenant.  As  circumcision  was 
formerly  the  token  of  the  covenant,  and  baptism,  an  ordinance 
of  the  same  church  under  the  same  covenant,  has  been  histituted 
by  Christ,  it  is  obvious  that  baptism  is  siihstituted  in  the  place 
of  circumcision,  as  the  visible  token  of  the  covenant  of  the 
church. 

This  is  evident  also,  from  the  fact,  that  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism import  the  same  thing.  As  a  si_:^n,  circumcision  represented 
the  renovation  of  the  heart,  or  regeneration.  Baptism  represents 
the  same  thing.  As  a  seal,  circumcision  confirmed  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,  or  the  covenant  of  grace.  Baptism  does  the 
same.  If  then  circumcision  and  baptism  are  of  the  same  im- 
port, and  if,  when  the  former  was  abolished,  the  latter  was  estab- 
lished in  the  sa7ne  church,  and  appended  to  the  sa7?ie  covenant, 
it  is  obvious  that  the  one  was  substituted  for  the  other. 


72  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

This  is  evident  also  from  the  language  of  Paul  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  where  he  says,  (2 :  11  — 12,)  "  Ye  are  circumcised  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ ;  buried  with 
him  in  baptism."  *  Here  the  Apostle  calls  baptism  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ,  or  the  Christian  circumcision,  obviously  teaching 
us  tiiat  it  stands  in  the  place  of  circumcision.  Moreover,  Justin 
Martyr,  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  and  the  prim- 
itive fothers  generally,  taught  that  baptism  was  to  be  considered 
as  having  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 

The  objection  offered  by  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism,  that 
circumcision  was  applied  only  to  males,  is  obviated  entirely  by 
the  Apostle  Paul,  who  assures  us  that  under  the  gospel,  (Gal.  3  : 
28)  "  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek  —  there  is  neither  bond, 
nor  free — there  is  neither  male  nor  female."  In  Christ  both 
sexes  have  equal  access  to  all  the  visible  ordinances  of  his  king- 
dom. If  then  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision, 
which  was  applied  by  divine  command  to  the  children  of  believ- 
ers, then  the  command  of  God  still  binds  believing  parents  in 
covenant,  to  see  that  baptismal  water  is  applied  to  their  children. 

Thus  we  see,  from  these  foiir  considerations,  that  the  children 
of  visible  believers,  now  hold  the  same  covenant  relation  to  the 
church  which  they  held  anciently.  The  church  is  the  sanie 
church  —  the  covenant  is  the  same  covenant  —  the  promise  is 
the  same  promise  —  the  token  of  the  covenant  bespeaks  the 
same  thing,  and  baptism  is  now  substituted  for  circumcision ; 
therefore  the  young  children  of  visible  believers  are  noiv  as  prop- 
er subjects  for  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  in  the  form  of  baptism, 

*  Calvin,  commenting  on  this  text,  says,  "  What  is  the  meanhig  of  this  lan- 
guage, but  that  the  accomplishment  and  truth  of  baptism  is  the  same  with  the  ac- 
complishment and  truth  of  circumcision,  since  they  both  represent  the  same  thing? 
For  the  Apostle's  design  is  to  show  that  baptism  was  to  Christians,  the  same  that 
circumcision  had  before  been  to  the  Jews." 

So  again,  after  stating  fully  his  reasons,  "  It  is  evident  beyond  all  controversy 
that  baptism  has  succeeded  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  represents  to  us  the 
very  same  thing  which  that  formerly  did  to  the  Jews."  Again  :  —  "  Let  us  never 
forget  the  similarity  of  baptism  and  circumcision,  between  which  we  discover  a 
complete  agreement  in  the  internal  mystery,  the  promises,  the  use,  and  the  effi- 
cacy ?  "  Again,  "  As  baptism  and  circumcision  both  stand  on  the  same  ground, 
they  can  attribute  nothing  to  the  latter  which  they  must  not  also  grant  to  the  for- 
mer."    Vide  13ook  4,  chap.  16,  where  there  is  more  to  the  same  effect. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  73 

as  they  were  anciently  for  the  same  seal  in  the  form  of  circum- 
cision. Their  covenant  relation  is  the  same,  and  the  nature  and 
import  of  the  seal  are  the  same.  We  believe  this  conclusion  is 
sounds  and  fair,  and  scriptural  —  that  it  rests  on  solid  rock ; 
and  therefore  that  it  furnishes  an  explicit  and  ample  ivarrant  for 
the  practice  of  the  solemn  and  delightful  duty  of  Infant  Baptism 
—  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  the  church. 

In  proof  of  the  position  that  the  children  of  visible  believers 
are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism; 

II.  Let  us  examine  the  instructions  given  by  Christ, 
united  with  his  treatment  of  little  children.  We  have  seen 
that  in  the  church  of  Israel,  children  were  uniformly  connected 
with  thier  parents  in  God's  gracious  covenant,  and  the  token  of 
the  covenant  was  uniformly  applied  to  children.  This  was  the 
state  of  the  case  when  our  blessed  Lord  commenced  his  public 
ministrations.  Now  if  he  had  designed  to  put  an  end  to  the 
practice  of  publicly  dedicating  young  children  to  God,  what 
course  would  he  have  adopted  ?  Would  he  have  been  silent  ? 
By  no  means.  Silence  would  have  sanctioned  the  continuance 
of  the  practice.  If  such  had  been  hia  design,  he  would  have 
lost  no  opportunity  to  urge  the  riecessity  and  duty  of  abolishing 
the  long  estabhshed  practice.  He  would  have  condemned  this 
practice  expressly,  and  without  reserv^e ;  as  no  longer  to  be  ob- 
served by  his  people.  Now  did  he  do  it  ?  Did  he  do  it  on  any 
occasion,  or  in  any  manner?  Never;  no,  not  in  a  single  instance. 
He  never  taught,  nor  hinted,  that  this  practice,  which  had  pre- 
vailed in  the  church  by  God's  express  command,  almost  two 
thousand  years,  was  now  under  the  gospel  to  be  aboUshed.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  our  blessed  Lord  designed  that  this  practice  of 
publicly  dedicating  the  young  children  of  visible  believers  to  God, 
should  be  continued  ;  what  course  might  it  have  been  expected, 
he  would  adopt  ?  Would  he  enjoin  the  continuance  of  the  prac- 
tice by  express  com^nand  7  This  would  only  be  enjoining  ex- 
pressly, what  was  already  enjoined  expressly  ;  an3  what  believers 
generally  understood  and  practiced.  What  course  then  might  it 
have  been  expected,  Christ  would  pursue  ?  Why  truly,  the  very 
course  he  did  pursue.  It  might  have  been  expected,  that  he 
would  often  speak  of  this  practice  with  implied  approl)ation,  and 
that  he  would  include  children  in  his  farewell  commission. 
This  is  the  very  thing  which  he  in  fact  did.  When  Zaccheus 
10 


74  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

believed  in  him,  said  lie  "  this  day,  is  salvation  come  to  thig 
house ;"  —  this  family,  (as  commentators  generally  agree,)  foras- 
much as  he  is  also  a  son  of  Abraham  [or  because  he  is  now  be- 
come a  genuine  son  of  Abraham.]  So  again  ;  when  little  children 
and  infants  were  brought  to  him  by  their  believing  parents,  that 
he  might  bless  them ;  he  applauded  the  act,  and  declared,  "  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  interview  is  thus  recorded 
(Matt.  19:  13,  14.)  '-Then  were  brought  unto  him  httle  children 
(Luke  says,  18  :  15,  they  were  infants)  that  he  should  put 
his  hands  on  them  and  pray,  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them. 
But  Jesus  said  sufler  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven"  is  a 
phrase  which  signifies  here,  as  it  generally  does  in  the  Evange- 
lists, the  Christian  church  or  kingdom  of  grace,  and  whether  it 
refers  to  the  church  on  earth  or  in  glory,  is  immaterial,  to  our  pre- 
sent application  of  it.  When,  therefore,  Christ  says  of  these  in- 
fants —  "of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  he  evidently  means 
to  teach  the  disciples  and  people  that  little  children  are  to  hold  the 
same  relation  to  the  visible  church  under  the  New  Testament 
dispensation,  as  they  had  held  from  the  days  of  Abraham.  If  he 
did  not  baptize  these  infants,  the  reason  doubtless  was,  because  cir- 
cumcision was  still  in  force,  and  Christian  baptism  not  yet  insti- 
tuted. But  when  the  disciples  rebuked  these  parents  for  bringing 
their  infants,  the  answer  of  Christ  seems  designed  to  teach  them, 
what,  as  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  they  would  readily  understand 
—  to  wit,  "  that  little  children  were  to  hold  the  same  relation  to 
the  church  of  God,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,"  as  they  held 
in  the  former  dispensation.  In  this  passage,  therefore,  the  lan- 
guage of  Christ  and  his  treatment  of  these  infants  vindicate  their 
right  to  baptism.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  judicious  commentators 
generally  ;  See  Scott,  Lathrop,  Woods,  Henry,  Dwight,  Pond, 
Doddridge,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Wardlaw,  Calvin,  and  many 
others. 

So  again:  —  When  our  Lord  gave  Ids  disciples  their  final  com- 
mission, this  was  the  form  of  it:  "Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :"  The  word  rendered  teach  {Mafhe- 
teusatc)  properly  signifies,  as  every  Greek  scholar  knows,  and  as 
commentators  agree  —  make  disciples  —  pi'oseli/ic  or  bring  over 
to  the  Christian  religion.     The  commission  then  is  this;  "  Go  ye 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  75 

and  proselyte  or  make  disciples  of  all  nations  [both  adults  and 
children]  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  this  commis.~ion  neither  infants 
nor  adults  are  expressly  mentioned  ;  but  the  word  nations  which 
Christ  used,  being  a  collective  term,  must  be  understood  as  in- 
cluding hath. —  And  if  Christ  intended  to  instruct  the  Apostles  to 
baptize  persons  of  every  age,  he  could  not  have  used  any  single 
word  to  express  his  intention  more  fully.  When,  therefore,  we 
consider  the  language  and  import  of  this  commission  of  Christ; 
and  the  fact  also  that  the  Apostles  were  familiar  with  the  repre- 
sentations made  in  the  Bible  respecting  the  Divine  conduct  to- 
wards parents  and  their  children,  it  is  clear  to  me,  (is  it  not  to  all 
unbiased  minds?)  that  Christ  must  have  intended  this  commis- 
sion to  baptize  the  nations^  and  that  the  xlpostles  so  understood 
it,  10  include  cJiildren  with  their  parents.  This,  I  believe,  is  the 
opinion  of  judicious  commentators  generally.  I  need  not  detain 
you  longer  on  this  argument.  From  these  passages,  it  is  plain, 
that  Christ,  in  his  instructions,  and  in  his  treatment  of  little 
children,  teaches  us  that  the  infants  of  visible  believers  in  the 
gospel  church  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

In  proof  of  our  position, 

III.  Let  us  examine  the  instruction  and  practice  of  the 
Apostles. 

The  Apostles  were  Jews,  and  of  course  they  were  perfectly  ac- 
quainted with  the  practice  which  had  long  prevailed,  of  applying 
the  token  of  God's  gracious  covenant  to  the  little  children  of  visi- 
ble believers,  and  like  the  rest  of  their  nation  were  strongly 
attached  to  this  practice.  Now  how  did  they  understand  their 
commission  to  proselyte  and  baptize  the  nations  ?  And  what 
course  might  it  be  expected  they  would  pursue  ?  If,  with  the 
uniform  custom  before  them  of  applying  the  token  of  the  cove- 
nant to  infants  which  God  had  expressly  commanded,  and  with 
the  broad  commission  of  Jesus  Christ  to  proselyte  and  baptize 
the  nations,  in  their  hands :  if,  under  these  circumstances,  the 
Apostles  had  designed  to  put  an  end  to  the  practice  of  dedicating 
little  children  to  God,  what  course  w'ould  they  have  adopted? 
Would  they  have  been  silent  7  By  no  means.  Silence  would 
sanction  the  continuance  of  the  practice.  If  it  had  been  their 
design  to  abolish  this  practice,  they  would  have  improved  every 
favorable  opportunity  to  urge  the  necessity  and  duty  of  laying 


76  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

aside  the  established  usage  of  pubhcly  dedicating  young  children 
to  God,  and  they  would  doubtless  have  been  clothed  with  divine 
authority  for  doing  so.  They  would  have  condemned  the  observ- 
ance of  the  established  practice,  expressly  and  without  reserve. 
Now  did  they  do  it  ?  Did  they  do  it  at  any  time  —  under  any 
circumstances  —  in  any  form  ?  Never :  no,  not  in  a  single 
instance.  They  never  taught  nor  hinted,  that  this  practice, 
which  had  so  long  prevailed  by  God's  express  command,  was 
now,  under  the  gospel,  to  be  abolished.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Apostles,  following  their  commission,  as  they  understood  it, 
had  designed  to  show  that  this  practice  of  publicly  dedicating 
little  children  of  visible  believers  to  God,  must  be  continued  in 
the  church,  wliat  course  would  they  adopt?  Would  they  enjoin 
the  continuance  of  the  practice,  by  express  commaiid  7  Cer- 
tainly not.  This  would  be  enjoining  expressly,  what  was  already 
expressly  enjoined,  and  what  believers  generally  understood  and 
practiced.  What  course,  then,  would  they  pursue?  Why,  truly, 
the  very  course  they  did  pursue.  They  would  take  an  early  oppor- 
tunity, and  would  repeat  it,  as  occasion  might  offer,  to  show  that 
God's  gracious  COVENANT,  which  he  made  with  Abraham  and  all 
his  spiritual  children,  of  all  nations  to  the  end  of  the  world,  was 
still  in  force  ;  and  that  therefore  young  children  were  still  in- 
cluded with  their  believing  parents,  and  must  still  receive  the 
token  of  the  covenant,  which  Christ  had  ordered  should  hence- 
forward be  baptism  instead  of  circumcision:  and  they  would,  from 
time  to  time  as  opportunity  offered,  baptize  whole  families  on  the 
profession  of  the  faith  of  the  parents.  Now  this  is  the  very  thing 
which  the  Apostles  actually  did.  In  the  very  first  sermon  they 
preached,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  on  the  day  of  pentecost, 
when  the  anxious  multitude  inquired  of  Peter  and  the  other 
Apostles,  "men  and  brethren  what  shall  we  do?"  he  said  unto 
them,  "  repent  and  be  baptized,  for  the  promise,'^  the  great  prom- 
ise, which  reaches  onward  under  the  gospel,  "  is  to  you,  and  your 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,"  [other  nations  as  well  as 
Jews]  "  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  Now  to 
what  promise  does  the  Apostle  here  refer  ?  It  could  not  be  ex- 
clusively the  promise  of  miraculous  gifts,  spoken  of  by  the  pro- 
phet Joel,  and  just  fulfilled ;  for  that  was  neither  conferred  upon 
children,  nor  did  it  extend  to  all  who  were  afar  off.  What 
promise  was  it  then  ?     It  certainly  was  a  promise,  suited  to  their 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  77 

inquiry  as  sinners,  seeking  to  understand  the  gospel  scheme  of 
mercy  ;  and  anxious  to  know  what  they  should  do  to  be  saved. 
It  was  a  promise,  too,  so  well  known  and  understood,  that  it  was 
only  necessary  to  call  it,  "  the  promise."  It  was  a  promise 
that  runs  to  parents  and  their  children.  It  was  a  promise  well 
known  to  the  Jews,  and  clearly  held  up  in  the  Bible.  Now  what 
promise  was  thus  familiar,  and  thus  clearly  held  up  in  Scripture  ; 
so  that  it  was  known  at  once,  by  the  name,  "  the  promise  ?" 
There  is  but  one  in  the  Bible  possessing  these  marks  :  and  that 
is  the  great  promise  of  the  covenant,  which  God  established  with 
Abraham  and  his  seed.  Says  Henry,  commenting  on  this  pas- 
sage "  Your  children  shall  still  have,  as  they  have  had,  an  interest 
in  the  covenant,  and  a  title  to  the  external  seal  of  it.  For  the 
promise  of  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  to  you  and  your  children.  It  was  very  express,  (Isaiah  59 :  21,) 
'  I  will  pour  my  spirit  upon  thy  seed  ;'  and  when  God  took  Abra- 
ham into  covenant,  he  said,  '  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  : '  now  when  an  Israehte  is,  by  baptism,  to  come  into  a  new 
dispensation  of  this  covenant,  it  is  proper  for  him  to  ask,  '  what 
must  be  done  with  my  children  ?'  '  must  they  be  thrown  out,  or 
taken  in  with  me?'  Taken  in,  says  Peter,  by  all  means;  for 
the  PROMISE,  that  great  promise  of  God's  being  to  you  a  God,  is 
as  much  to  you  and  your  children  noiv,  as  it  ever  was.  Nor  is  it 
confined  to  you  and  them,  but  the  benefit  of  it  is  designed  for  all 
that  are  afor  o(f ;  for  the  blessing  of  Abraham  comes  upon  the 
Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ."  (Gal.  iii :  14.)*  Says  Dod- 
dridge, "  If  the  2iro?nise  be  interpreted  as  referring  to  a  remoter 
clause,  *  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins,'  this  whole  verse  must  be 
taken  in  a  greater  latitude,  as  rcfering  to  the  encouragement 
which  all  future  converts  and  their  children  had,  to  expect  the 
benefits  of  the  gospel.  In  which  view,  I  think  it  would  much 
favor  Infant  Baptism,  as  many  writers  on  the  subject  have  largely 
shown."t  Says  Dwight,  "The  promise,  here  referred  to,  is  plain- 
ly that,  which  was  made  to  Abraham.  As  there  is  no  other 
promise  in  the  scriptures,  made  to  the  Israelites  and  their  children ; 
we  know,  that  this  is  the  promise,  referred  to  by  Peter :  and  this 
declaration  assures  us,  that  it  is  extended  to  the  church  under  the 
Christian  dispensation.  Children,  therefore,  hold  exactly  the  same 
relation  to  the  church,  at  the  present  time,  which  they  held  under 

*  In  loco.  t  In  loco. 


78  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM- 

thc  Abmhamic  dispensation."*  When  this  promise  —  this  cove- 
nant was  established  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  circumcision 
was  apphed  as  the  token,  that  is,  the  seal  of  the  promise.  For 
the  same  reason,  Peter  urges  npon  these  anxious  inquirers  the 
duty  of  baptism  ;  "  Be  baptized,  says  he,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  promise  is  to  you  and  your 
children."  The  reason  here  urged  by  Peter,  in  favor  of  baptism 
then,  is  this  :  the  jiromisc  which  God  made  to  Abraham,  being 
to  you  and  your  children,  furnishes  the  same  reason  for  baptiz- 
ing the  childre?i  as  the  2^o.rents.  Here  then,  in  the  first  sermon 
of  which  we  have  an  account,  after  Christ's  ascension,  Peter, 
with  the  other  Apostles,  lays  down  and  establishes  the  doctrine 
that  baptism  is  to  be  administered, 'as  circumcision  had  been,  to 
visible  believers  and  their  children.  And  thus  the  doctrine  of 
Infant  Baptism,  is  \\Qxe  founded  on  an  immovable  basis. 

The  instructions  of  the  Apostle  Paul  coincide  with  those  of 
Peter  and  the  other  Apostles.  Paul  teaches  us  that  "  the  bles- 
sing of  Abraham,"  an  essential  part  of  which  consisted  in  the 
covenant  connection  of  his  children,  has  come  on  us  "Gentiles 
through  Jesus  Christ."  (Gal.  3;  14.) — So  again,  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  (7:  14,)  says  Paul,  "For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  believing  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  by  the  husband  ;  else  were  your  children  iinclean,  but  now 
are  they  holt/.^'  In  this  passage  the  Apostle  settles  the  question, 
that  the  children  of  parents,  where  only  one  is  a  believer,  are  to 
be  consecrated  to  God  in  baptism.  The  word  unclean,  here,  as 
in  Scripture  generally,  denotes  that  which  may  not  be  offered  to 
God.  The  word  holy,  as  used  here,  is  the  converse  of  unclean, 
and  denotes  that  which  may  be  oifered  to  God.  And  in  this 
text,  the  Apostle  evidently  teaches  that  the  unbelieving  parent  is 
sanctified  by  the  believing  parent,  in  such  a  sense,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  it,  their  children  are  separated  from  heathenism,  and 
may  be  treated  as  sustaining,  with  the  believing  parent,  a  cove- 
nant  relation  to  God  —  and  thus  they  should  be  consecrated,  or 
offered  to  God  in  baptism,  the  only  way  in  which  children  may 
be  publicly  and  visibly  set  apart  for  the  Lord,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  Commentators  and  philologists,  generally, 
have  agreed  in  these  views  of  this  text.     Doddridge  says,  "  On 

*  Theol.  vol.   5.   p.  .316.      Sec  also   Calvin,   Latlirop,   Edwards,   and  many 
others. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  79 

the  maturest  and  most  iiiipaitial  consideration  of  tliis  text,  I 
must  judge  it  to  refer  to  Infant  Baptism.  Nothing  can  be  more 
apparent  than  that  the  word  holy  signifies  persons  who  might  be 
admitted  to  partake  of  the  distinguishing  rites  of  God's  people." 
As  for  the  interpretation  which  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism 
have  contended  for,  that  holy  signifies  legitimate,  and  unclean 
illegitimate,  says  he.  "  this  is  an  unscriptural  sense  of  the  word, 
and  nothing  can  be  more  evident,  tlian  that  the  argument  will 
by  no  means  bear  it."*  So  Calvin  says,  "  The  children  of  the 
Jews,  because  they  were  made  heirs  of  that  covenant  and  dis- 
tinguished from  the  children  of  the  impious,  were  called  a  holy 
seed.  And  for  the  same  reason,  the  children  of  Christians,  even 
when  only  one  of  the  parents  is  pious,  are  accounted  holy,  and 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Apostle,  differ  from  the  impure 
seed  of  idolaters." t  Whitby  says,  commenting  on  this  text,  "If 
the  holy  seed  among  the  Jews,  was  therefore  to  be  circumcised, 
because  they  were  born  in  sanctity  —  then  by  like  reason,  the 
holy  seed  of  Christians  ought  to  be  admitted  to  baptism,  and 
receive  the  sign  of  the  Christian  covenant."  t  Scott  says,  "After 
long  attention  to  this  subject,  I  cannot  but  conclude,  that  the 
baptism  of  the  infant  oflspring  of  Christians  is  here  evidently 
referred  to,  as  at  that  time  customary  in  the  churches  ;  and  that 
the  Corinthians  knew  that  this  was  not  objected  to,  when  only 
one  parent  was  a  Christian."  §  Many  others  might  be  quoted, 
but  it  is  unnecessary.  From  these  texts,  we  see  that  in  the  in- 
structions given  by  the  Apostles  touching  Infant  Baptism,  they 
recognize  and  vindicate,  and  thus  establish  the  doctrine,  that  the 
children  of  visible  believers  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  j^ractice  of  the  Apostles.  Did  they 
baptize  the  children  of  believers?  In  the  16th  chapter  of  Acts, 
Luke  has  given  us  two  cases  of  family  baptism,  about  which 
there  can  be  no  doubt ;  that  of  Lydia,  and  that  of  the  Jailer. 
"  And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of  the 
city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped  God,  heard  us ;  ivhose  heart 
the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things  that  were 
spoken  of  Paul.  And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  house- 
hold, she  besought  us,  saying,  if  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  fjiith- 
f«l  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and  abide  tliere.     And  she 

*In  loco.  t  Book  4.  chap.  16.  Sec.  6. 

t  Vide  Scott,  in  loco.  §  See  Com.  on  the  place. 


80  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

constrained  us."  (14,  15.)  Any  man,  who  will  read  this  passage 
with  care  and  candor,  must  see  that  Lydia  alone,  of  that  family, 
believed  :  and  that  upon  her  believing,  the  whole  household  were 
baptized  with  her.  Whether  there  were  infants,  or  servants,  or 
both  in  the  family,  is  wholly  immaierial ;  the  account  represents 
hev  faniil)/  as  baptized  on  her  faith  ;  and  this  establishes  the 
doctrine  under  consideration.  The  account  does  not  intimate 
that  a  single  individual  believed,  except  Lydia,  the  head  of  the 
family  ;  which  it  surely  would  have  done,  if  any,  and  especially 
if  all  of  them,  together  with  Lydia,  had  become  believers. 
Take  the  account  as  Luke  has  given  it  to  us,  and  no  unbiased 
man  can  doubt  that  the  whole  family  were  baptized  upon  her 
faith.  This  case  is  so  clear  and  so  conclusive,  that  the  opposers 
of  Infant  Baptism  cannot  resist  the  argument  it  presents,  and 
they  usually  pass  it  with  telling  us  that  Paul  and  Silas,  sometime 
after,  before  they  left  Philippi,  "  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia, 
and  when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them  and 
departed  ;  "  and  therefore  it  is  possible  that  Lydia's  family  were 
all  believers.  But  Luke  gives  no  intimation  of  any  such  possi- 
bility. He  tells  the  whole  story,  from  which  it  is  certain  that 
Lydia  alone  believed.  "  Whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she 
attended,"  &c.  "  And  she  besought  us,  saying ;  If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful  —  come  into  my  house."  This  lan- 
guage shows  certainly  that  she  onhj  believed.  If  her  whole 
family  believed,  as  their /ai/^  was  infinitely  more  important 
than  their  baptism ;  Luke  would  have  mentioned  it.  So  remark- 
able an  event  as  the  conversion  of  a  whole  family  would  not 
have  been  passed  in  silence.  The  writer's  fidelity,  to  say  nothing 
of  any  other  motive,  required  the  mention  of  it.  Further ; 
Luke's  narration  is  just  such  as  any  other  Psdobaptist  would 
have  given,  on  the  ground  that  Lydia  alone  believed,  and  that 
her  family  were  baptized  in  view  of  her  faith.  Nothing  can  be 
more  certain,  then,  than  the  fact,  that  Lydia  only,  of  that  family, 
believed;  and  that  upon  Aer  beheving,  her  whole  family  were 
baptized. 

Again  ;  (verses  31,  32,  33,  34.)  "  And  they  said,  Believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  house.  And 
they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were 
in  his  house.  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night, 
and   washed  their   stripes,  and   was   baptized,^  he  and   all  his 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  81 

straightway.  And  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his 
house."  It  is  certain,  as  every  reader  of  the  Greek  knows,  and 
as  commentators  agree,  that  this  believing  and  this  rejoicing 
refer  to  the  Jailer  only.  An  exact,  literal  translation  of  the  orig- 
inal Greek,  [Egalliasato  panoiki  pepisieiikos  to  Theo,)  reads 
thus,  "and  he  rejoiced  with  all  his  house,  he  having  believed  in 
God."  The  word  rendered  believed  is  in  the  singular  number. 
Had  the  family  believed,  this  word  nuist  have  been  in  the  plural. 
The  word  rendered  with  all  his  honse,  stands  with  and  qualifies 
the  verb  rejoiced.  It  is  evident  and  certain,  therefore,  that  the 
Jailer  only,  believed,  and  that  his  family  were  baptized  on  his 
faith.  There  was  good  reason  for  the  Jailer  to  rejoice  in  con- 
nection with  his  family  ;  for  this  connection  with  them  was  such 
that  the  Apostle  could  say,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shall  be  saved  and  thy  house."  This  connection  be- 
tween believers  and  their  children,  —  a  connection  eminently  fa- 
vorable to  their  salvation,  —  was  doubtless  explained  to  the  Jailer, 
in  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  they  spake.  Whether  there 
were  infants  in  the  family  of  the  Jailer  or  not,  is  immaterial  to 
the  argument  before  us,  inasmuch  as  all  his,  —  all  that  were 
under  his  control,  of  every  age,  —  were  baptized  in  consequence  of 
his  faith.  This  case  then,  (hke  the  preceding,)  settles  the  point 
under  consideration. 

There  is  the  case  also  recorded,  (1  Cor.  1 :  16,)  where  Paul 
speaks  of  the  baptism  of  the  household  of  Stephanus  — -  but 
upon  this,  it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact, 
that  of  the  ten  cases  of  Christian  baptism,  mentioned  by  the 
Apostles,  three  were  households.  The  opposcrs  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism labor  to  set  aside  the  evidence  arising  from  these  cases,  by 
telling  us  that  the  term  household  does  not  necessarily  imply  in- 
fants. If  it  does  not  necessarily  imply  infants  ;  it  certainly  does 
so  generally.  This  word  household  is  used  more  than  fifty 
times  in  the  Bible,  and  uniformly  in  the  sense  in  which  we  use 
the  word /am?7y;  so  that  the  word  household  includes  young 
children  as  truly  as  the  Word  famili/,  which  always  embraces 
the  infants.  In  these  cases  of  households,  the  language  of  Luke 
is  unlimited.  He  does  not  say  Lydia  was  baptized,  and  those  of 
her  family  who  believed ;  or  the  Jailer  was  baptized,  and  as 
many  of  his  family  as"  believed.  There  is  no  such  limitation. 
Lydia  was  baptized,  and  lier  family.  The  Jailer  was  baptized, 
11 


52 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


and  all  his.  Thus  we  see  how  the  Apostles  understood  their 
commission :  they  taught  and  practiced  the  doctrine  of  Infant 
Baptism. 

There  are  several  collateral  considerations,  which  confirm  the 
preceding  arguments  ;  such  as  the  fact  that  the  baptism  of  chil- 
dren is  reasonable,  and  in  accordance  with  the  best  affections  of 
the  heart :  the  analogy  of  God's  covenant  dealings  in  past  ages : 
the  enlargement  of  privilege  under  the  gospel,  and  the  fact  that 
if  the  children  of  primitive  Jewish  believers  had  been  deprived 
of  the  token  of  the  covenant  under  the  gospel,  they  would  cer- 
tainly have  complained.  But  I  pass  these  considerations,  and 
proceed  to  show, 

IV.  That  our  position  is  confirmed  by  Enn.F.siASTiCAL  his- 
tory. On  this  point  I  propose  to  show  from  the  testimony  of 
the  early  Christian  fathers,  and  the  most  authentic  historians, 
that  Infant  Baptism  has  been  the  practice  of  the  church,  ever 
since  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  The  opposers  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism sometimes  tell  us  that  this  doctrine  is  of  modern  origin  ; 
and  that  infant  or  household  baptism  was  not  practiced  in  the 
early  ages  of  Christianity.  They  sometimes  make  the  assertion 
also,  that  Infant  Baptism  had  its  rise  in  the  dark  ages,  and  un- 
der the  influence  of  popery.  Then  again,  they  tell  us  that  pop- 
ery is  the  daughter  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  that  this  can  be  as 
easily  authenticated  as  any  modern  historical  event.  But  these 
are  mere  assertions ;  they  have  never  hcen  proved — they  ca7i- 
not  be  proved.  They  are  no  doubt  made  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
citing the  prejudices  of  the  uninformed  ;  and  because  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  cannot  be  fairly  met.  We  do 
indeed  depend  mainly  upon  the  Bible  to  sustain  the  doctrine  of 
Infant  Baptism ;  and  I  trust  that  it  has  been  shown  from  the 
Bible,  that  this  doctrine  is  established  on  solid  rock,  where  it 
will  rest  till  the  end  of  time.  If  it  can  be  shown,  however,  that 
the  churches,  immediately  after  the  Apostles'  day,  practiced 
Infant  Baplistn,  it  will  furnish  a  complete  confirmation  of  the 
preceding  arguments:  inasmuch  as  the  primitive  churches,  no 
doubt,  held  fast  to  the  Apostolic  pattern.  This  I  shall  do  from 
the  most  ample  testimony.  Here  let  it  be  premised,  that  the 
apostles,  Paul  and  Peter,  lived  till  about  the  year  66  of  the  first 
century;  and  that  the  Apostle  John  lived  till  the  year  101 ;  so 
that  the  A])Q3tolic  age  continued  through  the  first  century. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  83 

Justin  Martyr,  of  whom  Mosheim  and  Milner  speak  in  the 
highest  terms,  was  born  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  about  the 
time  the  Apostle  John  died  ;  and  he  wrote  about  40  years  after 
the  Apostolic  age.  He  says,  "There  are  many  among  us  of  both 
sexes,  some  sixty,  and  some  seventy  years  old,  who  were  made 
disciples  of  Christ  from  their  childhood  ;  "*  that  is,  before  John 
died.  Justin  uses  the  very  word  [ematheteiithesaii]  which 
Christ  had  used  in  his  commission  to  the  Apostles,  to  go  and  dis- 
ciple all  nations,  baptizing  them,  (fcc.  Justin  therefore  under- 
stood the  command  of  Christ,  to  make  disciples  and  baptize,  as 
applicable  to  little  children.  And  there  never  was  any  other 
method  of  making  disciples  from  infancy  but  by  baptism.  This 
is  an  explicit  testimony  that  Infant  Baptism  was  practiced  before 
John  died. 

Irenaeus,  whom  Milner  and  Mosheim  represent  as  an  ardent 
and  sincere  Christian,  and  a  discreet  and  amiable  man  ;  was  born 
not  far  from  the  time  the  Apostle  John  died,  and  was  a  disciple  of 
Polycarp,  who  was  a  disciple  of  John :  Irenaeus  wrote  about  50 
or  CO  years  after  the  Apostolic  age.  Says  he,  "  Christ  passed 
through  every  age;  for  infants  he  became  an  infant,  that  he 
might  sanctify  infants."  And  again,  says  he,  "  Christ  came  to 
save  all  persons  who  by  him  are  born  again  [or  baptized]  unto 
God,  infants,  and  little  ones  and  children,  and  youth  and  elder 
persons. "t  By  being  born  again,  \i'enasciintur^  Irenaeus,  as  he 
himself  clearly  shows  elsewhere,  means  being  baptized.  This 
passage  of  Irenaeus,  therefore,  furnishes  fulljproof  that  Infant 
Baptism  was  the  prevailing  practice  of  the  church  in  his  day, — 
only  fifty  or  sixty  years  after  the  Apostolic  age. 

Tertullian,  whom  Mosheim  and  Milner  represent  as  a  man  of 
great  learning,  and  who  lived  within  one  hundred  years  of  the 
Apostolic  age,  says,  "The  delay  oi  baptism  is  more  useful  ac 
cording  to  every  person's  condition  and  disposition,  and  even 
their  age :  but  especially  with  regard  to  little  children  or  in- 
fants," X  As  Tertullian  is  here  directly  opposing  the  common 
opinion,  it  is  obvious  that  little  children  were  then  commonly 
baptized.  Says  Professor  Stuart,  "It  is  certain  that  Infant  Bap- 
tism was  in  general  practice  in  Tertullian's  day,  the  first  century 

*  Wall's  History,  In.  Bap.;   Part  I,  Chap.  2.  p.  13. 

t  Wall's  His.  In.  Bap.;   Part  T,  Chap.  3.  p.  14. 

%  Wall,  Part  I.  Chap.  4.  p.  21.      De  Baptismo,  Chap.  1». 


84  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

after  the  Apostles."  The  reason  why  TertuUian  proposed  the 
delay  of  baptizing  infants,  was,  that  he  attributed  to  baptism  an 
importance  not  given  to  it  by  Scripture. 

Origen,  whom  Moshein),  Mihier  and  others  represent  as  the 
most  learned  Christian  of  his  time,  and  who  travelled  in  various 
countries  and  was  acquainted  with  the  usages  of  Christians 
throughout  the  world,  was  born  about  85  years  after  the  Apostles. 
His  testimony  to  Infant  Baptism  is  clear  and  direct.  Says  he, 
"  According  to  the  usage  of  the  church,  baptism  is  given  \etiani 
parviilis]  even  to  infants."  And  again,  says  he,  "  Infants  are 
baptized  for  the  remissson  of  sins  ;  and  because,  by  baptism, 
native  pollution  is  taken  away,  therefore  infants  are  baptized." — 
And  again,  "  The  church  received  an  ovder  from  the  Apostles 
to  give  baptism  even  to  infants,  [ctiatn  parvulis  dare  haptis- 
mumJ^  ]  *  Origen  certainly  had  the  best  possible  means  of  know- 
ledge. His  grandfather,  or  at  most  his  great  grandfather  was 
cotemporary  with  the  Apostles.  His  opportunities  for  knowledge 
were  ample,  and  he  stands  before  the  world  unimpeached.  And 
he  says  expressly,  that  infant  bajitism  was  a  usage  of  the 
church;  and  that  the  church  received  an  order /rom  the  Apos- 
tles to  baptize  infants.  The  authenticity  of  this  testimony  has 
been  amply  settled  by  Dr.  Wall.t  It  cannot  therefore  be  resist- 
ed ;  it  settles  the  point  under  discussion. 

Cyprian,  another  distinguished  Christian  father,  who  lived  in 
the  time  of  Origen,  and  after  him,  was  president  of  the  council 
of  Carthage,  composed  of  sixty-six  bishops  or  ministers,  which 
was  held  153  years  after  the  Apostles.  Before  that  council  the 
question  was  proposed  by  Fid  us,  a  bishop,  whether  baptism 
should  be  administered  to  children  the  second  day  after  their 
birth,  or  whether,  as  in  case  of  circumcision,  it  should  be  delayed 
till  they  were  eight  days  old.  Cyprian  gives  the  result  of  the 
council  in  the  following  words :  "Cyprian  and  the  rest  of  the 
bishops  who  were  present  in  council,  sixty-six  in  number,  to 
Fidus  our  brother,  greeting. —  As  to  the  case  of  infonts;  where- 
as you  judge  that  they  must  not  be  baptized  within  two  or  three 
days  after  they  are  born,  and  thai  the  rule  of  circumcision  [to  wait 
till  the  eighth  day]  be  observed  ;  we  were  all  of  a  diOerent  opin- 
ion.    Not  one  was  of  your  mind  —  but  we  all  rather  judged  that 

*  Wall's  Hist.  In.  Bap.  Part  I,  Chap.  5.  p.  27.      t  Defence,  Chap.  .'5.  pp.  28,  29. 


SUBJECl'S    OF    BAPTISM.  85 

the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  is  to  be  denied  to  no  human  being 
that  is  born.  Tiiis,  therefore,  dear  brother,  was  our  opinion  in 
the  council,  that  we  ought  not  to  hinder  any  person  from  bap- 
tism, and  the  grace  of  God,  who  is  merciful  and  kind  to  all. 
And  this  rule,  as  it  holds  for  all,  we  think  more  esjiecially  to  be 
observed  in  reference  to  infants^  even  to  those  newly  born."*  In 
view  of  this  unanimous  decision  of  sixty -six  ministers,  only  153 
years  after  the  Apostles,  says  Milner,  "  Here  is  an  assembly  of 
sixty-six  pastors,  men  of  approved  fidelity  and  gravity,  who  had 
stood  the  fiery  trial  of  some  of  the  severest  persecutions  ever 
known  ;  who  had  testified  their  love  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in 
a  more  striking  manner  than  any  Anti-Psedobaptists  have  had 
an  opportunity  of  doing  in  our  days :  and  who  are  not  wanting 
in  ajiy  fundamental  of  godliness.  Before  this  holy  assembly  a 
question  is  brought ;  not  whether  infants  should  be  baptized  at 
all;  none  contradicted  this;  but  whether  it  is  right  to  baptize 
them  immediately,  or  on  the  eighth  day.  To  a  man  they  all 
determined  to  baptize  them  immediately. —  Let  the  reader  con- 
sider." "Tome"  says  Milner,  "  it  is  impossible  to  account  for 
this,  but  on  the  footing  that  it  had  ever  been  allowed,  and  there- 
fore that  the  custom  was  that  of  the  first  churches  "t  Among 
these  sixty-six  men  there  must  have  been  some  aged  men  who 
had  lived  within  sixty  or  eighty  years  of  the  Apostles,  and  were 
well   acquainted  with  Apostolic  practice. 

Again  :  in  the  Apostolic  constitutions,  ascribed  to  Clemens, 
which  were  extant  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  it  is  thus  writ- 
ten, "Baptize  your  infants,  and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  I 

Optatus,  who  lived  about  260  years  after  the  Apostles,  compar- 
ing Christ,  put  on  in  baptism,  to  a  garment,  exclaims,  "  Oh  !  what 
a  garment  is  this,  that  is  always  one,  and  never  renewed ;  that 
decently  fits  all  ages  and  all  shapes  !  It  is  neither  too  large  for 
infants  nor  too  small  for  men,  nor  does  it  need  any  alteration  for 
women.  But  lest  any  one  should  say  I  speak  irreverently  in 
calling  Christ  a  garment,  let  him  read  what  the  Apostle  says^ 
'=  as  juany  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
have  put  on  Christ."§ 

*  Cyp.  F.pis.  ad  Fiduin.  Epis.  59.    ^VaI^s  His.  In.  l?ap.  Part  1 ,  Ciiap.  (>.  pp.  .37, 38. 
tSee  Church  His.  Vol.  I.  p.  102.  t  Wall's  His.  In.  Bap.  Part  I. 

§  Wall's  His,  In.  Bap.  Part  I.  Chap.  9,  p.  56. 


56 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  wrote  about  260  years  after  the 
Apostles,  says,  "Hast  thou  an  infant  child?  Let  not  wickedness 
have  the  advantage  of  time  :  let  him  be  sanctified,  [that  is,  bap- 
tized, as  he  evidently  uses  the  word,]  let  him  be  dedicated  from 
his  cradle,  to  the  Spirit.  Thou,  as  a  faint-hearted  mother,  and 
of  little  faith,  art  afraid  of  giving  him  the  seal,  because  of  the 
weakness  of  nature.  Give  to  him  the  Trinity,  that  great  and 
excellent  preservative  !  "* 

Ambrose  flourished  274  years  after  the  Apostles.  He  says, 
"  Those  infants  that  are  baptized,  are  reformed  from  a  wicked 
state  to  the  primitive  state  of  their  nature."  Again  says  he, 
'*  Unless  any  person  be  born  again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  You  see,"  says  he, 
"  Christ  excepts  no  one  ;   not  an  infant."t 

Chrysostom,  who  lived  280  years  after  the  Apostles,  says, 
"  But  our  circumcision,  I  mean  the  grace  of  baptism,  gives  cure 
without  pain  —  circumcision  was  to  be  given  on  the  eighth  day  : 
but  baptism  has  no  determinate  time,  but  it  is  lawfid  that  one  in 
infancy,  or  one  in  middle  age,  or  one  in  old  age^  do  receive  it." 
Again  says  he,  "  you  see  how  many  are  the  benefits  of  baptism. 
And  yet  some  think  that  (he  heavenly  grace  (of  baptism)  con- 
sists only  in  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  but  I  have  reckoned  up  ten  ad- 
vantages of  it.  For  this  cause  we  baptize  infants  also,  though 
they  are  not  defiled  with  sin"  (that  is,  actual  sin.)+ 

Augustine,  sometimes  called  Austin,  who  flourished  about  288 
years  after  the  Apostles,  whom  Milner,  (Vol.  2.  p.  500,)  calls 
"  the  great  luminary "  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  furnishes 
express  and  abundant  testimony  to  show  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  handed  down  from  the  Apostles.  In  his  work  against  the 
Donatists,  speaking  of  the  efliicacy  of  baptism,  says  he,  "  this 
the  whole  body  of  the  church  holds  as  delivered  to  them  in  the 
case  of  little  infants,  who  are  baptized  ;  who  certainly  cannot 
believe  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness  or  confess  with  the 
mouth  to  salvation,  6cc.  and  yet  no  Christian  will  say  they  are 
baptized  in  vain."  Again  says  he,  "  the  whole  church  practice 
Infant  Baptism.  It  has  not  been  instituted  by  councils,  but  was 
ever  in  use,  and  is  very  reasonably  believed  to  be  a  thing  ordered 

*  Wall,  Pajt  I.  Chap.  11.  pp.  62.  t  Wall,  Part  I.  Chap.  13.  p.  88,  89. 

t  Wall,  Part  I.  Chap.  14.  pp.  92,  91. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  87 

by  authority  of  the  Apostles."  Again  ;  in  his  Book  on  Genesis^ 
says  he,  "  the  custom  of  our  Mother,  the  church,  in  baptizing 
infants  must  not  be  disregarded  nor  accounted  needless,  and  it 
must  by  all  means,  be  believed  to  be  a  tradition  or  order  of  the 
Apostles,  [Apostolica  traditio.''^)  Again  ;  bespeaks  of  "  baptizing 
infants  by  the  authority  of  the  whole  church  which  was  undoubt- 
edly delivered  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles."  Again,  says  he, 
"  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  heard  any  other  thing  from  any 
Christians  that  received  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  :  neither 
from  such  as  were  of  the  Catholic  church,  nor  from  such  as  be- 
longed to  any  sect  or  schism  :  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  read 
otherwise  in  any  writer  that  I  could  ever  find,  treating  of  these 
matters,  who  followed  the  canonical  Scriptures,  or  pretended  to 
do  so,"  "  that  infants  are  not  baptized  for  that  reason,  to  wit  that 
they  may  receive  remission  of  sins."* 

Pelagius  was  cotemporary  with  Augustine.  He  was  greatly 
distinguished  for  his  acuteness  and  learning  ;  was  born  in  Britian, 
and  had  travelled  through  France,  Italy,  Africa  Proper,  and 
Egypt,  to  Jerusalem.  He  was  the  founder  of  the  noted  Pelagian 
heresy  ;  and  in  his  controversy  with  Augustine  was  crowded  ex- 
ceedingly with  the  arguments  brought  against  him  ;  which  he 
might  easily  have  answered  by  denying  Infant  Baptism  ;  but 
though  greatly  tempted  to  this  denial,  he  could  not  make  it  in 
truth ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  contrary  to  his  own  interests,  he 
says,  "Baptism  ought  to  be  administered  to  infants  with  the 
same  sacramental  words,  as  it  is  to  elder  persons."  '  Again,  says 
he,  "Men  slander  me,  as  if  1  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism 
to  infants."  Again,  says  he,  "  I  never  heard  of  any,  not  even  the 
most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  infants."  "  Who 
can  be  so  impious,"  says  he,  "  as  to  hinder  infants  from  being 
baptized  ?  "t 

Celestius,  another  learned  man,  who  flourished  at  the  same 
time  with  Pelagius,  and  agreed  with  him  in  sentiment,  says, 
"We  own  that  infants  ought,  according  to  the  rule  of  the 
universal  church,  and  according  to  the  sentence  of  the  gospel, 
to  be  baptized."  And  again,  "  as  for  infants,  I  always  said  that 
they  stand  in  need  of  baptism,  and  that  they  are  to  be  baptized."^ 

♦Wall,  Part  I,  Chap.  15—19;    pp.  106—173. 

t  Wall,  Port  I,  Chap.  19;  pp.205  — 211.  |  Ibid.  pp.  211  — 281. 


88  SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 

Now  certainly  Augustine  and  Pelagius*  and  Celestius  must  have 
known  the  truth  on  this  subject:  and  here  they  tell  us  what  the 
truth  is.  x\nd  their  testimony,  considering  their  character  and 
cirumstances,  is  in  the  highest  degcee  convincing  and  satisfactory.! 

Thus,  my  hearers,  I  have  placed  before  you  evidence,  as  full 
and  specific  and  certain  as  the  best  authenticated  histories  furnish 
of  any  fact,  that  Infant  Baptism  prevailed  universally  from  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  through  the  first  four  centuries.  During 
that  period,  no  one  denied  it  —  no  one  wrote  against  it.  —  Now 
what  shall  we  do  with  this  blaze  of  evidence,  respecting  the  uni- 
versal practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  in  the  primitive  church  ?  Was 
the  church,  during  the  first  400  years,  (the  brightest  period  of  her 
history,)  in  error  on  this  subject  ?  Did  she  not  know  the  mind  of 
Christ,  and  the  Apostles  ?  And  with  these  truths  before  us  can 
we  doubt  where  lies  the  path  of  duty  ?  And  what  is  the  testi- 
mony of  the  history  of  the  church  since  that  period  ?  Says  Dr. 
Wall,  (page  244,)  "  the  first  body  of  men  we  read  of,  who  denied 
baptism  to  infants,  were  the  Petrobrusians  in  1150."  Dr.  Gill, 
one  of  the  most  learned  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism,  admits  "that 
Infant  Baptism  was  the  practice  of  the  church  universally  from 
the  third  to  the  eleventh  century. "J 

Dr.  Wall,  the  most  laborious  and  faithful  writer  who  has  ever 
examined  this  subject  thoroughly,  and  who  devoted  no  small  part 
of  his  life  to  this  examination,  as  the  result  of  his  extensive  re- 
searches, says,  "For  the  first  four  hundred  years  after  Christ, 
there  appears  only  one  man,  TertulHan,.  that  advised  the  delay 
of  Infant  Baptism  in  some  cases,  and  one  Gregory,  who  did  per- 
haps practice  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  own  children  ;  but  no 
society  so  thinking  or  so  practicing,  nor  one  man  saying,  that  it 
was  unlawful  to  baptize  infants."  "  In  the  next  700  years,"  that 
is,  from  the  close  of  the  fourth  to  the  begining  of  the  eleventh 
century,  "  there  is  not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found  that 
either  advocated  or  practiced  such  delay  —  but  all  the  contrary. 

*  Mr.  Judson,  a  noted  opposer  of  Infant  Baptism,  says,  (p.  49,)  "  Pelagius 
admitted  that  baptism  ought  to  be  administered  to  infants,  knowing  probably  that 
by  stemming  the  popular  torrent,  he  should  lose  more  in  point  of  credit,  than  he 
could  gain  in  point  of  argument." 

t  Many  other  testimonies  might  be  cited.  See  Doddridge,  that  deeply  read  his- 
torical scholar,  in  his  Sec.  Vol.  pp.  383  —  391,  Woods,  Lathrop,  and  others. 

t  Answer  to  Clarke,  quoted  by  Fond,  fu-st  edition,  page  88. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


89 


And  when,  about  the  year  1130,  one  sect  among  the  Waldenses 
declared  against  the  baptizing  of  infants,  because  they  supposed 
them  incapable  of  salvation,  the  main  body  of  that  people  reject- 
ed their  opinion.  And  the  sect  that  held  that  opinion,  soon 
dwindled  away  and  disappeared.  And  from  that  time  to  the  year 
1522,  Infant  Baptism  was  the  universal  practice  of  the  church  of 
Christ."* 

And,  says  Milner,  another  distinguished  and  faithful  historian, 
after  a  long  and  thorough  examination,  "  On  the  whole,  a  few 
instances  excepted,  the  existence  of  Anti-Psedobaptism  seems 
scarcely  to  have  taken  place  in  the  church  of  Christ,  till  a  little 
after  the  beginning  of  tlie  reformation,  [in  the  sixteenth  century,] 
when  a  sect  arose,  called  the  Anabaptists."! 

And  ought  not  the  testimony  of  Milner  to  be  received  as  good 
authority  ?  If  so,  this  point  is  settled  forever,  so  far  as  history  is 
concerned. 

I  am  aware  that  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism  sometimes 
affirm  that  the  Waldenses  do  not  practice  Infant  Baptism. t  But 
the  truth  is  they  do  practice  it.  In  1825,  Rev  Sereno  E.  D wight 
of  Boston,  visited  the  Waldenses.  Mr.  Burt,  a  minister  and  mo- 
derator of  their  synod,  informed  Mr.  Dwight,  "  that  the  Wal- 
denses had  always  baptized  their  infants  and  always  done  it  by 
affusion."§  The  Greek  church  also,  has  always  advocated  and 
practiced  Infant  Baptism  ;  and  they  do  so  to  this  day.  Though 
they  have  departed  from  the  pure  faith  of  the  gospel  in  many 
points  of  Christian  doctrine,  yet,  as  they  speak  the  Greek  language, 
this  fact  should  be  remembered  ;  especially,  as  the  opposers  of 
Infant  Baptism  often  quote  them  in  favor  of  immersion  — 
though  they  never  quote  them  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  While 
it  is  admitted  they  generally,  though  not  always,  practice  immer- 

*  Wall's  His.  In.  Bap.  part  II,   Chap.  10.  page  523.  t  Vol.  3.  p.  427. 

t  Whoever  reads  John  Paul  Perrin's  account  of  the  doctrine  and  order  of  the 
Waldenses: — Sir  Samuel  ^lorland's  do.,  —  and  Leger's  Histoire  General e  ; 
will  see  that  though  a  sniall  sect  of  the  Waldenses,  (the  followers  of  Peter  de 
Bruis,)  rejected  Infant  Baptism  ;  the  great  body  of  them  always  believed  and 
practiced  it.  William  Jones,  an  opposer  of  Infant  Baptism,  in  his  history  of  the 
Waldenses,  in  two  octavo  volumes,  professes  to  give  a  full  account  of  their  faith 
and  order  ;  but  he  carefully  leaves  out  of  all  their  public  formularies  and  other 
documents,  everything  which  would  disclose  their  Psedobaptist  principles  —  an 
artifice  which  honesty  and  justice  alike  condemn. 
§  Recorder  and  Telegraph  for  March  12,  1825. 
12 


90  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

sion  as  the  mode,  none  can  deny,  that  they  uniformly  baptize 
their  httle  children  and  infants. 

Now  in  view  of  this  mass  of  evidence,  who  can  doubt  on  the 
subject  before  us?  Do  not  these  testimonies  establish  the  point, 
beyond  all  question,  that  the  baptism  of  children  and  infants  has 
been  uniformly  and  almost  universally  practiced  in  the  church  of 
Christ,  ever  since  Paul  preached  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and 
the  Savior  poured  out  his  blood  for  the  salvation  of  the  world  ? 
"  Is  it  not  certain,  therefore,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  an  inno- 
vation in  the  church,  but  was  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles  themselves  1  On  this  ground,  and  this  only,  all  sacred 
and  profane  history,  relating  to  the  subject,  will  appear  plain  and 
consistent,  from  Abraham  to  Christ,  and  from  Christ  to  this  day." 
Who,  with  all  this  evidence  before  us,  can  deny  the  right  or 
the  DUTY  of  Infant  Baptism?  Who,  with  this  evidence  before 
him,  can  make  light  of  this  duty,  and  hold  it  up  to  public  re- 
proach T 

Thus  it  has  been  shown,  that  the  cJnirch  of  God  has  been  the 
same  church,  in  all  her  essential  characteristics,  under  both  the 

*  And  what  do  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism  do  with  this  testimony  of  men 
who  lived  in  the  first  three  centuries  after  the  Apostles  ?  I  answer  ;  they  bring 
forward  a  list  of  witnesses  who  lived  in  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth,  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  to  testify  that  Infint  Baptism  was  not  practiced  in  primitive  times  ;  as 
though  such  testimony  would  set  aside  that  of  the  primitive  fathers.  But  they 
usually  quote  these  modern  witnesses  without  telling  us  when  they  lived,  and  with 
the  apparent  design  of  making  the  impression  that  they  lived  in  the  early  ages. 
I  am  surprised  on  looking  into  two  of  their  most  prominent  authors,  ( Judson  and 
Pengilly,  now  lying  before  me,)  to  find  that  they  quote  Vitringa,  Salmasius,  Eras- 
mus, Chambers,  Barlow,  Suicerus,  Curceiiius,  Rigaltius,  Venaema,  Grotius,  Epis- 
copus,  and  others  ;  all  of  whom  lived  since  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  to  rebut  the  testimony  of  unimpeached  witnesses,  who  lived  in  the  first 
three  centuries  after  the  Apostles.  If  we  were  to  improve  such  witnesses  in  sup- 
port of  our  views,  we  might  summon  them  forth  by  hundreds  and  thousands. 

Calvin,  who  was  probably  more  intimately  acquainted  with  the  ecclesiastical 
history  of  the  first  centuries,  than  any  man  of  his  times,  and  whose  historic  testi- 
mony has  never  been  impeached,  says,  (Book  iv.  Chap.  16.  Sec.  8,)  "Every  one 
must  perceive  that  the  baptism  of  infants,  which  is  so  strongly  supported  by  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  is  very  far  from  being  an  invention  of  men.  What  they, 
[the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism,]  circulate  among  the  uninformed  multitude, 
that  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  a  long  series  of  years  passed,  in  which  In- 
fant Baptism  was  unknown,  is  contrary  to  truth;  for  there  is  no  ancient  writer, 
who  does  not  refer  its  origin,  as  a  matter  of  certainty,  to  the  age  of  the 
Apostles." 

The  judicious  Brown,  (See  Die.  Bi.  Ait.  Bap.)  says,  "  none  can,  without  tha 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  91 

old  and  new  dispensations  ;  —  that  the  covenant  of  God  with 
his  people  has  heen  the  sa?7ie  covenant  under  both  dispensations: 
—  that  the  children  of  visible  believers  under  both,  have  sustain- 
ed a  peculiar  relation  to  the  church,  and  are  entitled  to  the  rite 
establishing  that  relation  :  —  that  baptism  is  substituted  for  cir- 
cumcision, and  extended  to  both  sexes  : — and  therefore  that  the 
children  of  believers  are  no^v,  and  will  be  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
proper  subjects  of  baptism,  the  New  Testament  token  of  God's 
holy  and  gracious  covenant.  —  Also  that  the  instructions  of 
Christ,  particularly  his  final  co7nm,ission  to  the  Apostles,  and  his 
treatment  of  children  :  —  and  the  instructions  and  practice  of 
the  Apostles,  show  conclusively,  that  the  children  of  visible  be- 
lievers still  sustain  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  church,  and  are  the 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  ;  and  moreover,  that  from  the  history 
of  the  church,  it  appears  that  the  baptism  of  children  and  in- 
fants, was  the  universal  practice  of  the  church  immediately 
after  the  Apostles,  during  the  first,  second,  and  third  centuries, 
and  thence,  with  few  exceptions,  down  to  the  sixteenth  century  : 
and  of  a  large  portion  of  the  Christian  world  to  the  present  day. 
Hence, 

The  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism  being  sustained  by  the 
covenant  of  God  —  by  the  instruction  and  example  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles  :  —  and  the  history  of  the  church  in 
every  age,  rests  on  an  immovable  basis,  and  will  rest  there 
till  the  end  of  time.     It  never  can  be  overthrown.     Amen. 

most  affronted  imposition,  allege,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  commonly  practic- 
ed in  the  primitive  ages  of  Christianity." 

The  accurate  Miiner,  (see  Vol.  i.  page  401,)  says,  "  To  those  who  say  that  the 
custom  of  baptizing  infants,  was  not  derived  from  the  Apostolic  age  —  we  have 
never  had  such  a  custom  as  that  of  confining  baptism  to  adults,  nor  the  churches 
of  Godr 

The  learned  Cave,  (See  his  Primitive  Christianity,  seventh  edition,  London, 
1728,  page  193,)  says,  "  that  it  was  the  constant  practice  of  the  church  and  those 
who  immediately  succeeded  the  Apostles  "  to  baptize  infants,  "  we  have  suffi- 
cient evidence  from  the  greatest  part  of  the  most  early  writers  —  so  that  the  most 
zealous  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism  know  not  how  to  evade  it  ;  the  testimonies 
being  so  clear,  and  not  the  least  shadow  in  those  times  of  anything  to  make 
against  it."  This  is  only  a  sample  of  the  witnesses  who  have  lived  since  the 
fifteenth  century,  whom  we  might  quote.  But  we  rest  the  historical  argument, 
touching  the  fiirat  three  centuries,  upon  the  testimony  of  witnesses  who  lived  then. 


LECTURE    IV. 

SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

THE  OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM  ANSWERED;  THE  CONSE- 
aUENCES  OF  REJECTING  INFANT  BAPTISM ;  THE  IMPORT  AND  UTILITY 
OF  INFANT  BAPTISM  ;  FREE  COMMUNION. 

MATT.   XXVIII.    18,  19. 

The  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism  being  proved  from  the  Bible, 
and  from  the  history  of  the  church;  the  opposers  of  this  doc- 
trine raise  against  it  several  objections,  which  it  will  be  the 

I.  Object  of  this  discourse  to  examine  and  refute. 

The  most  common  and  plausible  objection  which  the  op- 
posers  of  Infant  Baptism  bring  against  it,  is,  that  it  is  not  enjoin- 
ed by  any  express  command  of  Scripture. 

They  insist  that  a  positive  religious  rite  must  be  founded  on 
an  express  command  of  God  ;  and  that  there  is  no  such  express 
command  to  baptize  children. 

As  to  an  express  command,  why  was  it  necessary  or  to  be  ex- 
pected ?  God  had  already  expressly  commanded  that  children 
should  be  circumcised.  And  as  this  command  including  chil- 
dren has  never  been  revoked  ;  and  as  baptism  has  been  com- 
manded in  place  of  circumcision,  the  command  to  apply  the 
seal  of  visible  dedication  to  children,  which  anciently  was  cir- 
cumcision, but  now  is  baptism,  is  in  truth  in  force.  We  might 
therefore  conclude,  that  if  any  command  were  necessary,  it  must 
be  a  command  forbidding,  and  not  a  command  enjoining  Infant 
Baptism.  As  to  the  fact  of  an  express  command;  if  the  explan- 
ation given  in  the  last  lecture,  of  Christ's  commission  to  disciple 
and  baptize  all  nations,  be  correct ;  then  in  this  commission  we 
have  as  express  command  to  baptize  children,  as  we  have  to  bap- 
tize adults.  And  until  it  can  be  shown  that  the  term  nations 
does  not  include  children,  this  commission  must  be  understood, 
as  the  Apostles  and  early  Christians  evidently  understood  it,  in 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM,  93 

the  light  of  an  express  command  to  practice  Infant  Baptism. 
But  for  the  present  we  will  waive  this  consideration.  I  ask,  is 
there  no  duty  binding  upon  us,  except  those  which  are  enjoined 
by  express  command  ?  Then  why  do  we  observe  the  first  day  of 
the  week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath?  There  is  no  command  in 
the  Bible,  requiring  us  to  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the 
Christian  Sabbath.  If  we  admit  the  duty  of  keeping  the  first 
day  of  the  week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  we  must  rest  the  ob- 
ligation to  this  duty,  on  the  original  institution  as  enjoined  in  the 
fourth  command  —  and  we  must  admit  that  after  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  a  change  of  the  day,  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  took  place.  But  there  is  no  command  recorded  in 
the  Bible,  enjoining  this  change.  How  then  do  we  know  that 
we  are  right  in  keeping  the  first  instead  of  the  seventh  day,  as 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  1  I  answer :  the  Apostles  and  Chris- 
tians of  the  first  three  or  four  centuries,  as  we  learn  from  eccles- 
iastical history,  kept  the  first  day  and  not  the  seventh.  And  we 
are  warranted,  from  the  purity  of  their  faith  and  lives,  (knowing 
that  they  had  the  best  opportunity  to  form  a  correct  judgment,) 
to  conclude,  without  any  express  command,  that  we  are  author- 
ized to  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath. Apply  the  universal  agreement  of  Christians  in  this  case,* 
to  the  case  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  there  is  a  most  striking  anal- 
ogy between  the  institution  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  and  that  of 
Infant  Baptism. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbath  was  enjoined  by  the  express 
command  of  God  —  so  was  the  dedication  to  God,  of  the  male 
infants  of  covenanting,  believing  parents  by  circumcision.  Un- 
der the  Christian  dispensation,  the  original  institution  of  the  Sab- 
bath has  undergone  the  change  of  observing  the  first  instead  of 
the  seventh  day,  and  this  change  was  not  brought  about  by 
express  divine  command  specifically  recorded  in  the  word  of  God, 
but  by  the  teaching  and  practice  of  the  Apostles  and  primitive 
Christians.  So  also,  imder  the  Christian  dispensation,  the  orig- 
inal institution  of  dedicating  the  children  of  visible  behevers  has 
undergone  the  change  of  substituting  the  external  token  of  bap- 
tism for  circumcision,  and  extending  it  to  both  sexes  ;  and  this 
change  was  brought  about,  not  by  express  command,  (unless  the 

*  Those  who  hold  to  the  duty  of  keeping  the  sesenth  day,  are  so  few  in  num- 
ber as  scarce  to  form  an  exception. 


94  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

commission  of  Clirist  be  an  express  command,  and  we  believe  it 
is,)  but  by  the  teachings  and  practice  of  the  Apostles  and  primi- 
tive Christians.  We  find  several  things  in  the  Acts  and  Epis- 
tles, and  early  history  which  imply  that  the  Apostles  and  primi- 
tive Christians  generally  observed  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and 
it  satisfies  us.  So  also  we  find  several  things  in  the  Acts  and 
Epistles,  and  early  history,  which  show  clearly  that  the  Apostles 
and  primitive  Christians  generally  practiced  Infant  Baptism,  and 
a  large  part  of  the  Christian  world  have  therefore  been  satisfied 
that  Infant  Baptism  is  binding.  And  we  have  far  more  evidence 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  then  considered  by  the  church,  and 
was  to  be  handed  down  to  the  end  of  time,  as  a  bounden  duty; 
than  we  have  that  it  is  a  binding  duty  to  keep  the^r^^  day  of 
the  week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath.  Even  if  there  were  no  ex- 
press command,  then,  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  the  evidence  in 
its  favor,  independent  of  such  command,  is  conclusive.  So  this 
objection  falls  to  the  ground.  But  again ;  if  we  object  to  all  du- 
ties except  those  enjoined  by  express  command,  we  must  bar 
females  from  coming  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Lord's  Supper 
was  instituted  by  Christ,  and  is  therefore  a  divine  institution. 
But  the  command  to  observe  the  Lord's  Supper  was  given  only 
to  men,  not  to  females  ;  and  there  is  no  express  mention  in  the 
Bible,  that  females  were  to  partake  of  the  Supper.  And  yet  the 
whole  Protestant  world  agree,  that  they  are  proper  subjects  of  the 
Supper.  But  no  one  attempts  to  prove  it  by  an  express  com- 
mand. We  prove  it  rather  by  the  propriety  of  the  matter,  and 
from  the  uniform  practice  of  the  church  in  primitive  times,  as 
furnished  by  ecclesiastical  history  ;  together  with  what  the  Bible 
teaches  incidentally.  We  are  satisfied  in  this  case  of  females, 
independent  of  an  express  command.  Why  should  we  not  be, 
in  that  of  Infant  Baptism  ?  So  again,  this  objection  against 
Infant  Baptism  falls  to  the  ground.  It  has  not  the  weight  of  a 
feather  in  any  unbiased  mind  ;  and  we  believe  it  would  never  be 
offered,  if  valid  objections  could  be  found. 

Another  objection  urged  by  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism,  is, 
that  little  children  are  incapable  of  exercising  faith,  and  therefore 
they  should  not  be  baptized  ;  because,  says  the  objector,  faith  is  a 
pre-requisite  to  baptism.  To  this  I  reply  ;  though  faith  is  re- 
quired of  adults  in  order  to  baptism,  faith  is  no  where  required  of 
infants  in  order  to  any  privilege.     Besides,  if  faith  were  in  all 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  y;> 

cases  a  pre-requisite  to  baptism,  then  veril}^,  how  was  Christ,  who 
could  not  have  saving  faith,  a  proper  subject  of  the  ordinance? 
Moreover,  if  infants  cannot  be  baptized  for  want  of  faith,  they  can- 
not be  saved  for  want  of  faith,  [  he  that  beUeveth  not  shall  be 
damned  ;)  must  we  believe  then  that  those  of  them  who  die  in 
infancy  are  all  lost?     Who  can  adopt  so  revolting  a  conclusion? 

Further;  this  objection  lies  equally  against  circumcision.  If 
the  modern  opposer  of  Infant  Baptism  had  lived  in  the  days  of 
Abraham,  would  he  have  resisted  circumcision,  because  the 
infant  of  eight  days  was  incapable  of  faith  ?  He  might  have 
done  it  with  equal  propriety.  This  objection  then,  like  the  pre- 
ceding, falls  to  the  ground.* 

Another  objection  of  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism  is,  that 
baptized  children  sometimes  become  profligates  in  after  life.  I 
reply  :  persons  baptized  in  adult  years  sometimes  become  profli- 
gates subsequenily.  This  was  true  of  some  baptized  by  the 
Apostles:  witness  Simon,  Philetus,  Hymeneus,  and  others. 
This  objection,  therefore,  proving  too  much,  proves  nothing. 

Another  objection  offered  by  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism,  is,, 
that  it  will  do  no  good.  This  objection  shall  be  met  in  a  subse- 
quent part  of  the  discourse.  If  it  shall  there  be  shown  that 
Infant  Baptism  will  do  good,  this  objection  will  not  only  be  over- 
thrown, but  a  strong  additional  argumentin  favor  of  Infant  Baptism 
will  be  furnished. 

Another  objection  against  Infant  Baptism,  sometimes  offered, 
is,  that  it  laid  the  foundation  of  Popery. t  If  this  objection  were 
true,  it  would  amount  to  nothing.  If  the  abuse  of  Infant  Baptism 
were  a  subordinate  cause  of  Popery,  this  would  no  more  inval- 
idate the  rite  itself,  than  the  fact  that  adult  baptism,  when  abused, 
would  invalidate  such  baptism.  The  popish  abuse  of  a  good 
thing  is  no  reason  against  that  thing.  We  might  as  well  say  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  laid  the  foundation  of  the  popish  mass,  and  then 
attempt  to  abolish  the  ordinance.  If  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  Bap- 
tism, or  the  Christian  religion,  has  been  prostituted  to  a  bad  use 

*  If  faith  is  always  a  pre-requisite  to  baptism,  then  why  do  not  the  opposers  of 
Infant  Baptism  re-baptize  those  who  relinquish  all  hope  after  baptism,  and  subse- 
quently become  real  Christians  ?  Such  cases  frequently  occur ;  but  I  am  not 
aware  that  they  ever  re-baptize  these  converts. 

t  This  is  an  objection  which  was  never  made,  to  our  knowledge,  till  very 
recently. 


96 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


by  wicked  men  ;  this  constitutes  no  solid  objection  against  them. 
What  good  thing  has  not  been  prostituted  by  wicked  men?  But 
the  objection  is  false,  in  point  of  fact.  It  never  has  been  proved 
that  Infant  Baptism  laid  the  foundation  of  Popery.  The  truth 
is,  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism  cannot  fairly  meet  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  this  doctrine,  and  hence  some  of  them  have 
resorted  to  ridicule,  and  the  false  imputation  that  Popery  has 
grown  out  of  Infant  Baptism.  This  imputation,  we  fear, 
is  designed  to  excite  popular  feeling,  and  subserve  sectarian 
ends:  but  it  will  not  succeed.  The  objection  is  a  mere 
assertion  :  unsupported  by  a  particle  of  well  authenticated  his- 
tory. Dr.  Gill,  an  opposer  of  Infant  Baptism,  who  died  some 
fifty  or  sixty  years  since,  wrote  an  Essay  which  he  called 
"Infant  Baptism  a  part  and  pillar  of  Popery."  Robinson,  another 
opposer,  in  his  history,  quotes  (p.  408.)  merely  the  title  of  Dr. 
Gill's  Essay  as  conclusive  proof  ih^i  Infant  Baptism  is  the  pillar 
of  Popery.  And  Benedict,  (See  Vol.  I.  p.  87,)  another  opposer, 
says,  "  Dr.  Gill  called  Infant  Baptism  the  main  ground  and  pillar 
of  Popery,  and  a  great  number  of  Baptists  are  of  the  same  ojnn- 
iony  And  hence  some  of  the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism  assert, 
(it  is  mere  assertion,  they  bring  no  proof,)  that  it  is  not  matter  of 
speculation  and  dispute,  but  of  recorded  historical  fact,  that  Infant 
Baptism  paved  the  way  for  all  the  abominations  of  the  Roman 
church.  And  they  begin  to  say  that  they  are  sustained  in  these 
assertions,  by  Dr.  Woods  and  Prof  Stuart.  But  these  assertions 
are  gross,  unfounded  misrepresentations.  They  who  make  them 
tacitly  admit  it  themselves  ;  inasmuch  as  they  have  never  proved 
them  by  one  item  of  sober  history.  As  for  Dr.  Woods  and  Prof. 
Stuart,  they  have  never  printed  a  word  which  will  sustain  these 
assertions.  In  a  letter  just  received  from  Dr.  W^oods  on  this  very 
point,  dated  Dec.  10,  1834,  he  says,  "  I  have  never  printed,  or 
preached,  or  said  anything  to  authorize  such  an  assertion,  but  I 
have  said,  and  preached,  and  printed  a  good  deal  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  it."  Again,  says  he,  "Any  one  who  reads  my  Lectures, 
must  see  that  it  is  my  full  belief  that  Infant  Baptism  was  prac- 
ticed from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  I  consider  the  testi- 
mony of  ecclesiastical  history  as  conclusive  evidence  of  this. 
And  I  am  more  and  more  confirmed  in  my  opinion  that  it  is  the 
will  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  believers  shouM  dedicate  their 
children  to  God  in  baptism."     He  adds,  "  Prof.  Stuart's  views,  as 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  97 

may  be  seen  in  the  second  edition  of  my  Lectures  on  Infant 
Baptism,  are  correspondent  with  mine,  in  regard  to  tlie  argument 
from  ecclesiastical  history." 

The  assertion  that  Infant  Baptism  paved  the  way  for  all  the 
abominations  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  (hat  this  is  matter  of 
recorded  historical  fact,  has  been  submitted  to  Dr.  Emerson,  Pro- 
fessor of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Andover ;  Dr.  Miller,  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Princeton,  New  Jersey;  Dr.  Brownlee 
of  New  York,  the  gentleman  who  has  so  ably  and  successfully 
combated  the  Popish  Priests  in  that  city  ;  and  Mr.  Robbins  of 
Rochester,  the  author  of  several  exceedingly  valuable  historical 
works:  all  of  them  deeply  and  critically  versed  in  ecclesiastical 
history  ;  and  their  written  opinion,  now  lying  before  me,  is  in 
perfect  agreement. 

Says  Prof.  Emerson,  "  If  there  be  any  evidence  in  history  for 
affirming  that  Popery  owes  its  existence  to  Infant  Baptism,  I 
have  not  been  so  happy  as  to  meet  with  any  of  it,  and  know  not 
where  to  search  for  it."  Says  Prof.  Miller,  "  A  representation 
more  utterly  false^  could  hardly  have  been  fabricated.  The 
author  of  it  must  be  a  reckless  as  well  as  an  ignorant  man." 
Says  Dr.  Brownlee,  "The  assertion  is  not  sustained  by  one  single 
item  of  history,  ancient  or  modern  :  there  cannot  be  produced  one 
portion  of  sober  and  authentic  history,  to  sustain  it :  it  is  in  fact 
liistorically  false.  I  venture  to  say  that  no  man  well  read  in 
church  history,  and  in  the  history  of  Popery,  could  preserve  his 
gravity  at  hearing  it."  Says  Mr.  Robbins,  "  As  to  Padobaptism  pre- 
paring the  way  for  Popery,  I  do  not  remember  to  have  ever  heard 
the  conjecture  till  recently.  It  is  well  known  to  all  who  have  a 
moderate  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  church,  or  the  middle 
ages,  that  the  origin  and  progress  of  Popery  were  from  other 
and  very  different  causes." — Until  something  besides  unsupported 
assertion  is  produced,  then,  we  must  insist  that  the  objection  under 
consideration  is  utterly  unfounded. 

As  to  the  origin  and  causes  of  Popery,  the  Apostle  Paul, 
speaking  of  his  own  time,  says,  "The  mystery  of  iniquity  doth 
already  work."  An  ambitious  spirit  was  even  then  entering  the 
church,  which  Paul  foresaw  would  lead  to  the  gre  it  apostacy. 
And  whoever  will  examine  the  best  authenticated  histories  on 
this  point:  particularly  Mosheim  ;  Milner ;  McGavin's  Protestant; 
Cramp's  Text  Book  of  Popery  ;  and  the  History  of  Popery  by 
13 


98  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

a  watchman,  with  an  Introductory  Essay  by  Dr.  Miller ;  will  see 
that  the  principal  proximate  causes,  which  contributed  to  the  rise 
of  Popery,  were,  1.  The  favor  of  secular  power  and  influence,  un- 
der Constantine  and  his  successors.  2.  The  dechne  of  science. 
3.  The  neglect  of  the  Scriptures.  4.  The  introduction  of  images 
and  the  rites  of  idolatry  into  the  Christian  church.  The  origin 
of  Poperv,  accurately  speaking,  was  the  public  announcement  of 
the  bishop  of  Rome  as  universal  bishop  or  supreme  head  of  the 
church.  This  event  occurred  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
century ;  when  Phocas,  who  had  turned  traitor  to  the  Emperor 
Mauritius,  and  murdered  him,  usurped  the  reins  of  government ; 
and  then  issued  a  decree  conferring  the  title  and  dignity  of  uni- 
versal bishop  or  Pope,  upon  Boniface  HI ;  thus  Popery  arose.  — 
Thus  originated  that  system  of  spiritual  domination  "  which  has 
covered  the  church  with  sackcloth,  and  drenched  the  earth  with 
blood."  But  the  assertion  that  Infant  Baptism  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  all  the  abominations  of  the  Roman  Church,  is  untrue  :  it 
is  not  sustained  by  a  single  item  of  authentic  history.  And  un- 
til! the  historical  documents  and  facts  in  proof  of  the  assertion,  are 
produced,  its  authors  can  expect  nothing  better  at  the  hands  of 
the  community  than  to  be  treated  as  public  slanderers. 

Another  objection,  recently  offered  by  some  of  the  opposers  of 
Infant  Baptism,  is,  that  it  is  the  mother  of  Unitarianism.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  Peedobaptists  have,  in  some  instances,  become  Unita- 
tarians.  But  whoever  will  read  Mosheim,  (Book  4,  chap.  3  and  4,) 
and  make  himself  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  will  see  that  modern  Unitarianism  had  its  origin  with 
the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  (they  were  then  called  Anabap- 
tists.) In  England  and  in  this  country,  the  great  majority  of 
Unitarians  have  not  had  their  origin  with  Paedobaptists.  In  this 
country, among  the  Quakers  or  Friends,  who  never  practice  Infant 
Baptism,  a  very  large  number,  (probably  one  third  of  the  whole,) 
have  within  the  last  half  century  become  Unitarians.  Among 
the  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism,  who  have  become  Unitarians,  we 
need  not  mention  a  president  of  one  of  our  New  England  Col- 
leges—  several  clergymen  in  Rhode  Island  and  elsewhere,  and 
many  laymen,  judges  of  our  courts  and  others,  who,  though  oppo- 
sers of  Infant  Baptism,  have  become  Unitarians  ;  for  the  number 
of  their  ministers  in  the  United  States  who  profess  Unitarian  prin- 
ciples, (as  we  are  assured  by  their  own  writers,)  is  seven  hundred ; 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  99 

of  their  clunche?,  one  thousand  :  of  their  communicants  from  sev- 
ty-five  to  one  hundred  thou.=and  :  and  of  those  who  entertain 
their  view?,  from  two  hundred  and  fifty  to  three  hundred  thou- 
sand.* Hence  I  repeat,  the  great  majority  of  Unitarians  in  this 
coimtry  are  not,  and  never  were  Predobaptists.  This  objection 
then  fails  to  tiie  ground.  It  has  doubtless  been  thrown  out,  like 
that  which  relates  to  Poper}',  for  the  purpose  of  enlisting  the  preju- 
dices of  the  uninformed  :  but  it  cannot  succeed.  Facts  rebut  the 
calumny:  the  community  will  possess  them;  and  ultimately, 
these  objections  will  recoil  upon  the  heads  of  their  authors. — 
These  two  objections  have  manifestly  been  raised  for  the  unwor- 
thy purpose  of  enlisting  prejudice.  Ridicule  too  has  been  tried. 
Infant  Baptism  has  been  compared  to  the  baptism  of  cattle  ;  to 
the  baptism  of  nonentities  :  to  the  baptism  of  dead  men's  bones, 
<fcc.  (fcc.  Of  the  authors  of  such  unhallowed  attempts  to  ridicule 
this  sacred  ordinance,  we  will  only  say,  in  the  language  of  Christ, 
"  Father  forgive  them,  they  know  not  what  they  do."t 

Ridicule  will  fail.  And  the  slanderous  imputation  that  Infant 
Baptism  is  the  cause  of  Popery  and  Unitarianism  will  fail.  In- 
fant Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  God.  It  can  never  be  overthrown. 
It  will  stand  while  the  world  shall  stand. 

So  far  as  I  know,  these  are  all  the  objections,  worth  noticing 
that  are  usually  brought  against  Infant  baptism.     We  will  now, 

II.  Consider  briefly  some  of  the  consequences  of  rejecting 
the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism. 

They  who  oppose  and  reject  Infant  Baptism,  often,  if  not  gen- 
erally, fall  into  the  error  of  rejecting  the  Old  Testament,  as  of 
binding  authority.  For  if  they  admit  that  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New  are  of  equal  authority  at  the  present  day,  then  it 
will  follow,  as  has  been  shown  in  the  last  discourse,  that  God  has 
never  had  but  one  church  on  earth  —  that  the  Covenant  made 

*  See  the  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  article,  "  Christian  Connec- 
tion." 

t  Calvin,  speaking  of  the  opposers  of  Infant  IJaptism,  says,  (book  4,  chap.  16,) 
"  It  behooves  us  to  beware  lest,  by  opposing  the  holy  institutions  of  God,  we  oiTer 
an  insult  to  their  Author  himself"  .'\gain,  says  he,  "  If  any  man  takes  it  into 
his  head  to  ridicule  Infant  Baptism,  on  the  ground  that  it  will  do  no  good,  ho  holds 
the  command  of  circumcision,  wliich  was  given  by  the  Lord,  in  equal  contempt. 
For  what  will  they  allege  to  impugn  the  baptism  of  infants  which  may  not  be  re- 
torted against  circumcision."  Again,  "Those  who  raise  controversies  on  the 
subject  of  Infant  Baptism  are  presumptuous  disturbers  of  the  church  of  Christ." 


100  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

with  Abraham  is  slill  the  covenant  with  the  Christian  church  ; 
and  that  little  children  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  Soon- 
er than  admit  all  this,  some  of  the  opposers  of  Infimt  Baptism 
reject  the  present  binding  authority  of  more  than  half  the  Bible. 
A  consequence  so  shocking  and  so  fatal,  one  would  think  must 
stamp  their  whole  scheme  with  reprobation. 

Another  consequence  of  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism is,  it  necessarily  supposes  that  within  about  one  hundred 
years  of  the  Apostles,  Infant  Baptism  was  origi7ia(ed  and  became 
general  in  the  Christian  church  ;  and  yet  no  mortal  ever  made  an 
objection,  and  no  historian  living  in  those  early  ages  ever  once 
noticed  its  origin.  That  Infant  Baptism  was  generally  practiced, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  that  is,  within  about  one 
hundred  years  of  the  Apostles,  is  admitted  on  all  sides.  That 
there  never  was  any  objection  in  those  days  to  this  doctrine,  is 
manifest :  else  the  early  historians  would  have  noticed  it,  and 
Mosheim  and  Milner  and  others,  would  have  informed  us.  Now 
if  Infant  Baptism  was  thus  universally  prevalent  within  one  hun- 
dred years  of  the  Apostles  ;  (and  this  none  can  doubt ;)  and  if  no 
account  of  its  origin  subsequent  to  the  Apostolic  age.  is  furnished 
by  ecclesiastical  historians ;  then  the  man  who  can  believe,  that  it 
was  not  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  it  seems  to  me, 
can  easily  bring  himself  to  believe  any  favorite  prejudice  whatever. 

Another  consequence  of  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism is,  that  they  who  reject  this  doctrine,  must  reject  the  validity 
of  all  baptism.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  there  has  been  a 
regular  succession  of  adult  baptisms  from  the  days  of  Christ  to  the 
present  time  ;  that  is,  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  the  baptism  of 
adults  has  always  been  jierformed  by  persons  who  had  been  baptiz- 
ed when  adults;  neither  will  it  be  claimed  that  any  are  qualified  to 
administer  baptism  but  such  as  have  been  themselves  properly 
baptized.  It  follows,  then,  that  they  who  deny  the  validity  of  In- 
fant Baptism,  not  only  unchurch  all  other  denominations,  but 
they  unchurch  themselves  ;  they  not  only  nullify  Infant  Baptism, 
but  by  nullifying  Infant  Baptism,  they  nullify  all  baptism.  Con- 
sequently, upon  their  principles,  none  of  any  denomination  are 
now  properly  baptized,  and  none  can  be  properly  baptized,  till 
Jehovah  shall  favor  our  race  with  a  new  dit^jicnsation  from 
heaven.  Roger  Williams,  the  founder  of  the  first  Baptist  church 
in  Providence,  R.  I.,  in  the  year  1639,  which  was  the  first  that 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  101 

ever  rejected  Infant  Baptism  in  America,  and  tiie  second  of  that 
order  in  the  British  empire,  came  to  the  same  just  conchision. 
Morton,  in  his  Memorial  of  New  England,  pul)li.~hed  in  1669, 
says,  Mr.  Williams  and  others,  who  first  seliled  Providence,  "  had 
not  been  long  there  together,  but  from  rigid  separation  they  fell 
to  Anabaptistry,  renounoing  the  baptism  which  they  had  re- 
ceived in  infancy,  and  taking  up  another  baptism,  and  so  began 
a  church  in  that  way:  but  Mr.  Williams  slopped  not  there  long, 
for  after  some  time  he  told  the  people  that  followed  him  and  joined 
with  him  in  a  new  baptism,  that  he  was  out  of  the  way  himself, 
and  had  misled  them,  for  he  did  not  find  that  there  was  any 
upon  earth  that  could  administer  baptism,  and  therefore  their  last 
baptism  was  a  nullity  as  w^ell  as  their  first;  and  therefore  they 
must  lay  down  all,  and  wait  for  the  coming  of  the  Apostles." 
When  that  church  was  formed,  Ezekiel  Holyman,  (himself  a 
layman  who  had  never  been  immersed,)  immersed  Mr.  Williams, 
and  then  Mr.  Williams  immersed  him  and  ten  others.*  And 
thus  originated  the  first  Baptist  Church  in  the  United  Stales. 

Another  comsequence  of  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism, (and  insisting  upon  exclusive  immersion.)  is,  that  it  leads  to 
close  communion  ;  a  practice  which  grieves  all  unl>iased  humble 
Christians;  wounds  the  cause  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  cannot  be 
justified  by  the  word  of  God.  On  this  point  I  shall  speak  more 
fully  in  a  subsequent  part  of  tiiis  discourse.  Now,  if  such  con- 
sequences follow  the  rejection  of  this  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism, 
and  the  practice  of  exclusive  immersion,  then  how  can  we  re- 
nounce those  Bible  views  of  truth  which  it  has  been  the  object  of 
these  Lectures  to  vindicate? 

III.  Let  us  consider  the  import  and  utility  of  Infant 
Baptism.  Baptism  is  evidently  emblematic  of  the  purification  of 
the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Thus  saith  Isaiah,  "  I  will  pour 
water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry  ground  ; 
I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thy 

*  Knowles,  in  his  Life  of  Roger  Williams,  intimates  that  the  Roger  Williams 
Church  is  not  the  mother  of  all  the  close  communion  churches  in  this  country, 
and  thus  he  attempts  to  evade  the  above  consequence.  But  we  learn  from  Mos- 
heim,  (vol.  3,  p.  540,)  that  the  first  close  communion  church  in  England  was 
formed  in  1633,  and  probably  upon  the  same  principles  as  that  at  Providence; 
so  that  it  is  immaterial  whether  this  latter  be  the  mother  of  all  the  close  commu- 
nion churches  in  this  country  or  not.  In  either  case  it  is  true,  that  the  opposers 
of  Infant  Baptism  have  no  proof  that  their  baptism  is  received  from  men  who 
were  themselves  immersed. 


102  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

offspring."  So  Ezekiel,  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within 
you,  and  cause  you  to  w;ilk  in  my  statutes."  This  language  is 
prophetic  of  what  would  come  to  pass  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation ;  and  (here  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  refers  to  baptism 
with  water  as  an  emblem  of  the  affusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
the  soul.  So  says  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  Christ  loved  the  church 
and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it,  by 
the  washing  of  water  through  the  word."  And  "  not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he 
saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  In  these  and  many  other  texts  of  like  import,  we 
are  obviously  taught  that  baptism,  by  the  emblem  of  the  cleans- 
ing virtue  of  water,  denotes  the  removal  of  sin,  both  as  to  its  pol- 
lution and  its  guilt.  "  When  we  present  our  children  for  bap- 
tism," says  Dr.  Woods,  "  we  express  our  belief  that  they  are  the 
subjects  of  moral  pollution,  and  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  in 
order  to  be  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  we  express 
our  earnest  desire  that  they  may  experience  this  spiritual  renova- 
tion, and  our  solemn  determination  to  seek  after  it  by  fervent 
prayer  to  God,  and  by  faithful  attention  to  all  the  duties  of  Chris- 
tian parents.  This  seems  to  me  a  perfectly  natural  and  satisfac- 
tory view  of  what  is  signified  by  the  baptism  of  children.  The  use 
of  water  in  this  Christian  rite,  is  indeed  a  token  of  spiritual  cleans- 
ing, not  however  as  a  thing  actually  accomplished,  but  as  a  thing 
which  is  absolutely  necessary."  Such  being  the  import  of  Infant 
Baptism,  what  is  the  use  of  this  ordinance  ?  The  opposer  often 
asks  what  good  will  it  do  to  baptize  little  children  ?  This  question 
might  have  been  asked  by  Abraham  and  his  descendants.  What 
good  will  it  do  to  circumcise  little  children  ?  But  would  this  inquiry 
have  nullified  their  obligation  to  obey  the  command  of  God  ?  Is 
it  fit  and  proper,  in  matters  which  God  has  enjoined  upon  us,  to 
inquire  what  good  will  it  do  to  obey  him  ?  All  questions  of  this 
sort  as  to  Infant  Baptism,  would  have  been  equally  applicable  to 
the  circumcision  of  children.  But  we  are  ready  to  meet  this  ques- 
tion. The  utility  of  Infant  Baptism  may  be  shown  clearly  and 
fully. 

"  The  utility,"  says  Dr.  Woods,  "  of  positive  institutions  con- 
sists generally,  in  the  moral  influence  they  exert  upon  us;  in  their 
adaptedness  to  promote  good  affections,  and  to  excite  us  to  the 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  103 

diligent  performance  of  duty.  Now  there  is  no  institution  of  re- 
ligion, more  evidently  suited  to  liave  a  salutary  influence  than 
this.  When  we  consecrate  a  child  to  God  in  baj)lism,  our  eyes 
are  turned  to  Him  to  whom  we  and  our  offspring  belong,  and 
we  are  led  to  feel  the  perfect  reasonableness  of  such  a  consecra- 
tion. We  look  to  God's  holy  and  merciful  economy,  of  which 
baptism  is  the  appointed  token,  and  are  impressed  with  the  design, 
condescension  and  goodness  manifested  in  it,  and  the  invaluable 
blessings  resulting  from  it." 

1.  This  ordinance  teaches  us,  in  a  striking  manner,  that  in- 
fants are  moral  beings,  possessing  moral  and  intellectual  capaci- 
ties, and  capable  of  receiving  spiritual  blessings.  They  are  not 
mere  animals ;  else  the  Savior  would  not  have  put  his  hands  on 
the  infants  brought  to  him  and  prayed  over  them,  and  said, 
"  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  When  a  child  is  present- 
ed to  God  in  baptism,  the  truth  is  forced  upon  every  enlightened, 
reflecting  mind,  that  this  child  is  a  moral  being,  and  capable  of 
an  endless  progression  in  holiness  and  happiness. 

2.  This  ordinance  teaches  that  infants  are  depraved.  Evan- 
gelical Christians  everywhere  believe  in  native  as  also  in  entire 
or  total  depravity ;  as  saith  David,  "  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in 
iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  "  The  lan- 
guage of  Infant  Baptism,"  says  Mr.  Pond,  "  however  humiliating 
to  proud  nature,  is  too  plain  to  be  easily  perverted  or  misunder- 
stood ;  your  children  are  polluted  ;  they  are  depraved  from  their 
birth  ;  they  need  to  be  regenerated,  to  be  spiritually  cleansed  and 
purified;  and  it  is  on  this  accovmt,and  not  because  they  are  inno- 
cent, that  the  symbol  of  purification  is  applied  to  them." 

3.  This  ordinance  sets  before  us  the  necessity  of  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  soul  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
shows  that  the  blood  of  sprinkling,  which  speakelh  better  things 
than  the  blood  of  Abel,  may  be  applied  through  the  shedding 
forth  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  by  whom  the  soul  of  a  little  child  even, 
may  be  transformed  into  a  meetness  for  heaven. 

4.  This  ordinance,  is  admirably  fitted  to  impressupon  pa- 
rents the  solemn  and  delightful  duty  of  bringing  up  their  chil- 
dren in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  and  of  thus 
leading  them  to  a  more  faithful  discharge  of  their  parental  duties. 
Infant  Baptism  is  the  seal  of  a  covenant  between  God  and  the 
parent,  respecting  the  child.      This  covenant  is  a  covenant  of 


104  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

promise  and  requisition.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  "I  will  establish 
my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee, 
to  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee."  "  The  promise  is 
to  you  and  your  children."  "  Walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  per- 
fect. And  I  will  estabhsh  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee."  "  Know  therefore  that  the  Lord  thy  God 
is  a  foithful  God,  keeping  covenant  and  mercy  with  them  that  love 
him  and  keep  his  commandments,  to  a  thousand  generations." 
Therefore,  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when 
he  is  old  lie  will  not  depart  from  it."  Now  the  obvious  import  of 
these  promises  and  requisitions,  with  which  the  Bible  abounds, 
is,  that  if  visible  believers  who  visibly  dedicate  their  children  to 
God  in  infancy,  are  faithful  to  bring  them  up  in  the  way  they 
should  go  ;  God  will  bestow  upon  them  his  sanctifying  grace, 
and  be  their  God  and  portion  forever.  And  the  history  of  the 
chmch  verifies  the  faithfulness  of  God.  Recently  in  one  section 
of  our  coimtry,  where  from  tliiee  to  four  thous.uid  have  become 
the  hopefid  subjects  of  divine  grace  in  a  single  year,  a  very  large 
proportion  of  this  whole  number  were  in  early  life  consecrated  to 
God  in  baptism.  In  one  parish  in  New  England,  thirty-one  were 
received  to  the  church  at  one  time;  twenty-one  of  whom  were 
baptized  in  infancy.  At  another  time,  twenty-eight  were  receive'd 
to  the  same  church,  of  whom  twenty-one  had  been  thus  baptized  ; 
making  forty-two  out  of  fifty  nine.  In  another  parish,  about  one 
hundred  have  been  received  to  the  church,  and  all  but  twelve  of 
them  were  biiplized  in  infancy.  In  another  parish  seventy-nine 
have  been  added  to  the  church,  and  seventy-five  of  them  were 
baptized  on  the  faith  of  their  parents  in  early  life.  In  another, 
during  the  nine  years'  ministry  of  the  Pastor,  forty-nine  out  of  fifty 
that  have  been  added  to  the  church,  were  baptized  in  childhood. 
Facts  like  these  are  occurring  constantly  and  everywhere,  in 
churches  and  congregations  where  Infi\nt  Baptism  is  practiced. 
Even  in  this  congregation,  though  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism  is 
of  so  recent  origin  in  this  village,  that  the  first  child  ever  baptized 
in  this  place,  is  not  yet  twenty  five  years  old,  (she  is  a  member  of 
this  church,)  yet  even  here,  nearly  half  the  number,  (about  one 
hundred  and  thirty,)  who  have  joined  the  church  in  the  last 
three  and  a  half  years,  were  baptized  in  childhood.  If  parents 
were  uniforndy  and  universally  {\\ithful  to  bring  up  their  baptized 
children  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  we  believe  very  few,  if  any  of 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  105 

them,  would  be  left  in  the  broad  road :  God  would  show  that  he 
is  faithful  to  fulfil  his  covenant  promise  to  those  who  dedicate 
themselves  and  their  offspring  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost.  Infant  Baptism  is  most  wisely  adapted  to  secure  the  re- 
ligious training  and  ultimate  conversion  of  the  offspring  of  visible 
believers,  and  therefore  it  is  neither  an  unmeaning  nor  a  useless 
ceremony  ;  but  contrariwise,  most  expressive,  reasonable,  proper 
and  salutary  ;  and  when  observed  in  faith,  and  followed  liy  paren- 
tal fidelity,  the  great  Head  of  the  church  uniformly  puts  upon  it 
the  seal  of  his  approbation.     Let  us 

IV.  And  lastly,  examine  the  practice  of  free  or  open  com- 
munion. It  has  been  remarked  in  this  discourse,  that  one  conse- 
quence of  rejecting  Infant  Baptism,  and  insisting  upon  exclusive 
immersion,  is,  that  it  leads  to  the  practice  of  close  communion. 
Here,  as  in  regard  to  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  it  is 
important  to  possess  clear  views  of  the  point  before  us.  Let  me 
ask  your  attention,  then,  to  a  few  remarks  designed  to  illustrate 
the  principles  of  free  and  close  communion.  By  close  com- 
munion is  meant,  communion  at  the  table  of  our  common  Lord, 
restricted  to  a  single  denomination  ;  communion,  which  in  princi- 
ple and  in  fact,  excludes  all  other  denominations  of  Christians, 
however  sound  in  the  faith,  however  exemplary  in  holy  living, 
however  satisfactory  the  evidence  they  give  of  solid  Bible  piety ; 
and  this  because  tiiose  other  denominations,  examining  carefully, 
and  judging  honestly,  dilFer  from  the  advocates  of  close  commu- 
nion in  matters  confessedly  not  fundamental,  nor  essential  to  sal- 
vation. If  the  friends  of  free,  open  communion  denied  and  reject- 
ed the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible;  as  for  example, 
regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  justification  by  faith  in  the  Re- 
deemer ;  the  supreme  divinity  atid  real  humanity  of  Christ;  the 
supreme  divinity  and  distinct  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  the 
atonement  made  by  the  blood  and  sufferings  of  Christ;  the  doc- 
trine of  a  future  final  judgment,  and  of  an  eternal  state  of  happi- 
ness for  the  righteous,  and  of  misery  for  the  wicked  ;  then,  truly, 
it  would  be  justifiable  to  refuse  communion  with  them  at  Christ's 
table;  and  for  this  plain  reason  ;  these  doctrines  are  essential  to 
the  gospel  plan  of  salvation ;  and  we  must  not  fellowship  any 
man  who  makes  shipwreck  of  the  faith  of  Christ.  But  where 
there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  in  matters  not  fundamental,  the 
spirit  and  precepts  of  the  gospel  require  all  God's  people  to  walk 
14 


lOG  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

together  in  communion  as  brethren.  If  there  be  a  difference  as  to 
the  posture  of  kneehng  in  prayer ;  or  about  offering  prayer  with 
a  written  form  ;  or  about  preaching  the  pure  gospel  from  written 
notes,  or  memoritcr  or  extempore,  or  any  other  point  not  funda- 
mental ;  then  plainly  this  difference  should  be  no  bar  to  free  com- 
munion.  If  fundamental  truths  are  waived  or  yielded,  the  whole 
system  of  saving  mercy  is  marred  and  jeopardized  ;  but  if  mat- 
ters confessedly  not  fundamental  are  yielded,  the  temple  of  eternal 
truth  rests  upon  the  Rock  of  Ages  still.  If  either  of  the  fundamen- 
tal doctrines  just  enumerated  be  removed,  an  essential  link  in 
that  golden  chain  of  mercy,  upon  which  hang  the  hopes  of  all  be- 
lievers, is  destroyed  ;  and  the  whole  scheme  of  salvation  is  endan- 
gered. Whereas,  if  prayer  be  offered  to  God  in  faith,  the  posture 
of  the  body,  whether  it  be  standing,  reclining  or  kneeling,  is  an 
unessential  matter,  inasmuch  as  God  looks  at  the  heart,  not  at 
the  outward  appearance  ;  and  if  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  be 
preached  faithfully,  with  discrimination  and  with  effect,  whether 
it  be  with  or  without  notes,  memoriter  or  extempore,  as  a  matter 
of  principle,  is  immaterial;  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  preaching  of  the 
pure  gospel  that  is  made  the  wisdom  of  God  unto  salvation.  Apply 
these  remarks  to  the  Lord's  supper  and  baptism.  The  observ- 
ance of  the  Lord's  supper  is  enjoined  upon  all  visible  believers  to  the 
end  of  the  world.  But  the  manner  of  this  observance  is  neither 
enjoined  nor  particularly  specified.  The  Bible  says  the  time  was 
the  evening;  the  place  was  an  upper  room  of  a  private  dwelling; 
none  but  males  partook  of  the  ordinance;  there  was  a  table  be- 
fore them  ;  the  communicants  reclined  on  couches.  Now  does 
any  man  believe  these  circumstances  essential  to  the  due  observ- 
ance of  the  ordinance?  Suppose  the  time  be  morning  or  after- 
noon, instead  of  evening  ;  tlie  place,  the  ground  floor  of  the 
Lord's  house,  instead  of  the  chamber  of  a  private  dwelling;  sup- 
pose pious  females  comnume,  and  all  sit  on  their  seats  without  a 
table :  if  they  are  sound  in  the  faith,  and  exemplary  in  their  lives, 
does  any  reasonable  man  suppose  the  observance  is  uncriptural, 
and  unacceptable  to  God,  because,  forsooth,  in  these  external  cir- 
cumstances, there  is  not  an  exact  conformity  to  the  original  observ- 
ance ?  And  was  any  Christian  or  any  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians ever  debarred  from  communion  because  these  original  cir- 
cumstances were  neglected?  So,  as  to  baptism.  Baptism  is 
enjoined  upon  all  visible  believers.     But  the  mode  of  baptism  is 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  107 

no  where  enjoined  nor  particularly  designated.  This  ordinance, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  progress  of  these  Lectures,  is  scripturally 
observed  by  the  application  of  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  in  any  decent  mode,  whether  by  pouring,  sprinkling  or 
immersion.  Baptism  is  enjoined  ;  but  baptism  in  this  mode  or 
that ;  by  immersion  or  afTusion,  is  no  where  enjoined  ;  and  there 
is  no  certain,  positive  evidence,  that  any  case  of  baptism  recorded 
in  tlie  Bible,  was  performed  by  immersion.  The  mode  is  not 
designated  ;  this  is  left  to  the  judgment,  choice,  and  convenience  of 
all  devout  disciples  of  Christ.  Moreover ;  baptism,  though  enjoined 
as  a  significant,  instructive  and  solemn  duty,  is  never  represented 
in  the  Bible  as  essential  to  salvation.  Clirist  and  the  Apostles 
never  class  it  among  fundamental  doctrines.  Now  if  baptism  is 
not  essential  to  salvation,  and  if  the  mode  of  it  is  no  where  en- 
joined ;  is  it  not  marvellous  that  any  body  of  men,  professing  the 
Christian  name,  should  assume  the  awful  responsibility  of  exclud- 
ing from  communion  at  the  table  of  our  common  Lord,  all  vis- 
ible believers,  unless  they  practice  the  same  mode  of  baptism 
with  themselves,  and  believe  that  this  is  the  only  mode  ?  And 
especially,  is  not  this  marvellous,  when  the  advocates  of  close 
communion  themselves  admit  that  baptism  is  not  essential  to  sal- 
vation, and  that  the  only  important  point  of  difTerence  here,  re- 
spects the  mode?  We  who  advocate  open  communion,  are  de- 
barred from  their  communion,  not  because  they  think  us  errone- 
ous in  any  fundamental  doctrine ;  (if  this  were  so,  they  would  be 
justified  ;)  they  admit  that  there  is  an  essential  agreement  in  all 
fundamental  points;  but  they  exclude  us  from  communion  sim- 
ply because  we  believe,  after  a  careful  and  honest  examination, 
that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  confined  to  immersion,  and  that 
our  households,  as  well  as  ourselves,  should  be  baptized.  They 
in  fact  debar  us  from  their  communion,  because  v/e,  exercising 
the  privilege  common  to  all  Christians,  of  judging  for  ourselves, 
do  not  view  the  form  of  an  outward  ordinance,  and  the  manner 
of  dedicating  our  offspring  to  God,  precisely  as  they  do.  Because 
we  thus  differ  in  a  matter  confessedly  not  fundamental,  they  tell 
us  that  we  shall  not  sit  with  them  in  communion  at  the  table  of 
our  common  Savior,  to  commemorate  his  dying  love.  And  this 
unscriptural  practice  of  close  communion  grieves  the  hearts  of  a 
great  proportion  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  it  is   a 


108  '  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

Stumbling  block  before  the  wcild  at  large.  The  great  body 
of  true  believers  everywhere,  view  it  with  amazement,  sor- 
row and  disapprobation.  And  the  world  entrench  themselves  in 
unbelief,  averring  that  it  will  be  soon  enough  for  them  to  embrace 
Christ,  when  professors  of  religion,  who  expect  to  dwell  together 
in  heaven,  can  agree  to  commune  together  on  earth.  And  verily, 
the  time  has  come,  yea,  more  than  come,  when  all  the  true 
friends  of  Christ  should  unite  heartily  in  wiping  away  this  re- 
proach. All  evangelical  Christians,  of  every  name,  who  hold  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  should  be  united  and  consol- 
idated in  one  accumulating  mass  of  pure  and  holy  love  ;  and 
when  occasion  offers,  they  should  sit  as  one  great  family,  at 
the  same  table  of  one  and  the  same  common  Lord  ;  then  the 
world  will  have  a  visible  demonstration  that  the  children  of  God 
belong  to  one  great  family,  and  have  one  Lord  —  one  faith  —  one 
baptism  —  and  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  them  all.  This  practice  of  close  communion 
cannot,  I  am  persuaded,  continue  forever  ;  it  must  come  to  an 
end.     It  is  to  me  doubtful  if  it  survives  the  present  century. 

Free  covnmunion  with  all  visible  believers  who  hold  the 
fundamental  truths  of  the  gospel  should  be  practiced, 

L  Because  the  obhgations  of  brotherly  love  require  it.  Saith 
Christ,  "By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if 
ye  love  one  another :  as  I  have  loved  you,  ye  ought  also  to  love 
one  another."  Saith  Peter,  "  See  that  ye  love  one  another  with 
a  pure  heart,  fervently."  Saiih  John,  "  By  this  we  know  that  we 
have  passed  from  death  unto  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren." 
Now  can  Christians  follow  this  pattern  of  loving  one  another  as 
Christ  loved  us,  and  of  loving  one  another  with  a  pure  heart,  fer- 
vently ;  and  can  we  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death  unto 
life  because  we  love  the  brelhren,  unless  we  practice  free,  open 
communion  with  all  believers  in  regular  standing,  who  hold  fast 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel? 

Free  communion  should  be  practiced, 

2.  Because  the  principles  of  the  farewell  grayer  of  Christ 
require  it.  Saith  he,  (John  17:  20  —  23,)  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these 
alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their 
word :  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou.  Father,  art  in  me,  and 
I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us  :  that  the  world  may 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  109 

believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.  And  the  glory  which  thou  gavest 
me,  1  have  given  thcin,  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are 
one  :  1  in  them  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect 
in  one,  and  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me, 
and  hast  loved  them  as  thou  hast  loved  me."  The  burden  of  this 
prayer,  offered  on  the  eve  of  the  crucifixion,  was,  that  Christians 
might  be  united  ;  and  the  argument  urged  in  this  prayer  for 
perfect  Christian  union,  is,  its  resistless  influence  upon  the  world. 
This  union  among  believers  for  which  Christ  prayed  so  fervently, 
embraces  union  in  faith  —  in  spirit —  in  purpose  —  in  feeling — 
in  action  —  and  in  the  ordinances  of  God.  Of  course  it  em- 
braces union  and  communion  in  the  supper  which  commemo- 
rates the  matchless  love  of  our  only  Savior  and  common  Lord. 
For  several  generations  after  the  crucifixion,  the  object  of  this 
prayer  was  realized,  in  the  union  and  communion  of  Christians. 
And  how  shall  the  object  of  this  prayer  be  realized  again,  unless 
open  coinmunion  among  true,  visible  believers  be  universally 
practiced  ? 

Free  communion  should  be  practiced, 

3.  Because  it  is  in  agreement  with  the  iDord  of  God. 
Though  there  was  a  diversity  of  views  in  some  things  among 
the  followers  of  Christ  in  the  Apostolic  age,  yet  Paul,  with  this 
fact  in  his  eye,  says,  "  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith,  receive  ye, 
but  not  to  doubtful  disputations.  For  one  beUeveth  that  he  may  eat 
all  things  ;  another  who  is  weak  eateth  herbs.  Let  not  him  that 
eateth,  despise  him  that  eateth  not;  and  let  not  him  which  eateth 
not,  judge  him  that  eateth:  for  God  hath  received  him.  —  We, 
then,  that  are  strong,  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities  of  the  weak, 
and  not  to  please  ourselves. — Now  the  God  of  patience  and  consola- 
tion grant  you  to  be  like  minded  one  towards  another,  according 
to  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  may  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth  glorify 
God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Wherefore  re- 
ceive ye  one  another,  as  Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God." 
From  this  language,  can  anything  be  clearer  than  that  Chris- 
tians who  agree  in  fundamentals,  though  they  may  not  see  alike 
on  points  of  subordinate  importance,  are  bound  to  exercise  a  recip- 
rocal toleration  and  indulgence,  and  on  no  account  to  proceed  to 
that  open  rupture  which  close  communion  creates  and  sanctions  ? 
And  is  it  not  obvious  that  the  Apostle  urges  and  insists  upon 
those  very  principles  by  which  open  communion  is  practiced  ? 


110  SUBJECTS  OP  BAPTISM, 

Free  commnnion  should  be  practiced, 

4.  Because  no  man  or  sect  of  men  may  prescribe  as  a  con- 
dition oi  coxnmumon  whuX  the  Bible  does  not  enjoin  as  a  con- 
dition of  salvation  ;  in  other  words,  it  is  wrong  to  exclude  from 
our  fellowship  at  the  table,  any  whom  Christ  receives  as  his  peo- 
ple. It  is  admitted  by  all,  that  the  Bible  no  where  makes  baptism 
or  the  9node  of  baptism,  a  condition  of  salvation.  It  is  admitted 
that  Christ  receives  as  his  people,  multitudes  who  do  not  practice 
close  communion.  The  advocates  of  close  communion  admit 
this  ;  and  even  insist  largely  upon  their  charily  and  love  towards 
those  whom  they  bar  from  Christ's  table.  Now  if  they  are  real 
Christians,  Christ  receives  and  communes  with  them ;  and  if 
Christ  communes  with  them,  will  mortal  man  assume  the  respon- 
sibility of  rejecting  them  from  his  tabic?  But  if  neither  baptism 
nor  the  form  of  baptism,  is  made  a  condition  of  salvation  in  the 
Bible,  and  if  we  may  not  reject  from  communion  those  whom 
Christ  receives ;  it  is  obvious  that  we  are  bound  to  receive  to  com- 
munion all  the  true,  visible  disciples  of  Christ  who  hold  the  fun- 
damental truths  of  the  gospel. 

Free  communion  should  be  practiced, 

5.  Because  on  no  other  ground  can  the  glorious  things 
spoken  of  Zion  be  fulfilled.  The  propiiets  assure  us  that  a  day  is 
coming,  (the  Lord  hasten  it  apace,)  when  Zion's  watchmen  shall 
see  eye  to  eye,  and  when  her  friends  shall  walk  hand  in  hand, 
and  when  all  nations,  and  kindred,  and  tongues,  and  people  shall 
be  righteous  ;  when  there  shall  be  nothing  to  hurt  or  destroy  in 
all  the  holy  mountain  of  the  Lord.  Now  how  can  these  things 
be,  while  close  communion  is  practiced  ?  How  can  the  watch- 
men see  eye  to  eye,  and  the  saints  walk  hand  in  hand,  and  all 
be  righteous,  and  there  be  nothing  to  hurt  or  destroy  in  all 
the  holy  mountain  of  the  Lord,  unless  ministers  and  churches, 
and  all  the  friends  of  Christ,  adopt  and  practice  open  com- 
munion? 

Free  communion  should  be  practiced, 

6.  Because  we  shall  otherwise  fall  into  incmisistencies  that 
are  a  scandal  to  the  Christian  name.  The  advocates  of  close 
communion  admit  that  our  Pa;dobaptist  churches  and  ministers, 
are  the  churches  and  ministers  of  Christ ;  and  they  sometimes 
invite  our  ministers  even  to  preach  their  communion  sermons ; 
and  yet  fall  into  the  palpable  inconsistency  of  barring  us  from 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  Ill 

their  communion.  Why  will  they  thus  scandalize  the  Christian 
name?  If  our  churches  are  churches  of  Christ,  and  our  minis- 
ters are  ministers  of  Christ,  why  bar  them  from  his  table?  The 
advocates  of  close  communion  tell  us  that  the  Lord's  supper 
is  a  positive  institution.  True  :  so  is  the  gospel  ministry  a  posi- 
tive institution,  and  not  less  important  than  the  Lord's  supper. 
And  if  they  admit  that  we  are  gospel  ministers,  and  have  a  right 
to  administer  the  ordinances,  why  bar  us  from  them  ? 
Free  communion  should  be  practiced, 

7.  Because  it  is  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  the  church 
of  Christ  in  the  ages  succeeding  the  Apostles,  and  for  many  centu- 
ries after.  In  those  primitive  times  there  were  diversities  of  opin- 
ion on  points  not  fundamental ;  such  as  the  time  and  manner 
of  celebrating  Easter ;  [Easter  was  a  festival  in  commemoration 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christ;]  the  validity  of  baptism  performed 
by  heretics  ;  church  government  and  many  other  matters.  But 
notwithstanding  these  diversities  of  opinion,  Eusebius,  in  his  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  (Lib.  6,  Cap.  24,)  says,  "  They  held  commu- 
nion with  each  other."  So  also  Crosby,  a  learned  historian,  of 
those  who  practice  close  communion,  says  that  previous  to  the 
year  1C33,  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  "  had  been  in- 
termixed with  other  Protestant  Dissenters,  without  distinction,  and 
shared  with  the  Puritans  in  the  persecutions  of  those  times." 

Free  communion  should  be  practiced, 

8.  Because  the  church  on  earth  ought  to  become,  as  far  asr 
possible,  like  the  church  in  heaven.  With  the  church  in  heaven, 
where  all  cast  their  crowns  at  the  feet  of  the  Lamb  and  sing,  "Hal- 
lelujah !  the  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigncth:  blessing  and  honor, 
glory  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sittelh  on  the  throne  forever 
and  ever  ;"  there  close  communion  finds  no  countenance.  There 
one  Master  presides  —  one  table  is  spread  — •  one  spirit  reigns  — 
one  practice  prevails.  There  all  who  have  been  baptized  into 
one  body,  by  one  Spirit,  and  waslied  in  that  one  fountain  opened 
for  the  house  of  David,  and  are  of  one  heart,  and  one  mind, 
dwell  together  in  perfect  unity.  There  free  communion  of  heart 
with  heart,  and  soul  with  soul,  pervades  the  unnumbered,  holy 
glorious  throng.  The  church  on  earth  ought  to  bear  a  strong 
likeness  to  the  church  in  heaven.  As  there  is  but  one  table  above, 
there  should  be  but  one  below.  As  perfect  love  binds  all  hearts 
to  God  and  each  otlier  there,  so  love  unrestricted  should  bind  all 


112  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

hearts  together  here.  All  who  have  drunk  at  the  same  fountain 
—  are  enUsted  under  the  same  banners  —  and  will  finally  dwell 
in  the  same  kingdom  —  sing  the  same  song—  and  rejoice  forever 
in  the  glories  of  the  same  Redeemer ;  are  bound  to  make  the 
church  militant  as  far  as  possible  like  the  church  triumphant ; 
and  thus  to  urge  forward  the  chariot  wheels  of  the  Prince  of  life: 
and  this  can  never  be  done,  unless  free,  unrestricted  communion 
of  visible  believers,  who  are  agreed  in  the  fundamental  truths  of 
the  gospel,  be  universally  practiced. 

In  view  of  these  solemn  and  highly  important  considera- 
tions, how  can  the  advocates  of  close  communion  continue  to 
shut  out  from  the  table  of  the  blessed  and  only  Redeemer, 
three  fourths,  probably  nine  tenths  of  his  true  followers?  Yerily, 
it  is  my  sober  and  deliberate  opinion,  that  they  have  fallen  into 
a  grievous  error,  and  that  their  exclusive  views  of  the  mode  of 
baptism  and  the  subjects  of  baptism,  can  never  be  sustained  by 
the  word  of  God,  nor  by  the  history  of  the  church.  And  the 
somewhat  extended  and  careful  examination  I  have  given  this 
whole  subject,  within  the  last  three  months,  (and  I  have  availed 
myself  of  all  possible  helps  on  both  sides  of  the  controversy,)  is  a 
more  thorough  and  settled  conviction  than  I  ever  felt  before,  that 
those  who  advocate  exclusive  immerson  and  oppose  Infant  Bap- 
tism, are  in  the  ivrong' ;  and  that  our  Ptedobaptist  views  are 
founded  on  the  word  of  God,  and  will  endure  and  prevail  to  the 
end  of  the  world.  In  view  of  these  four  Lectures,  beloved  hear- 
ers, you  will  now  judge  for  yourselves  where  the  truth  lies.  May 
God  in  mercy  baptize  you  all  into  one  body,  by  one  Spirit,  and 
lead  you  into  all  truth,  and  carry  you  onward  and  upward,  till 
you  shall  finally  reach  those  mansions  which  Christ  has  gone  to 
prepare  for  all  that  love  him.     Amen.* 

*  See  Appendix,  [Note  D.] 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  A    . 

Some  persons,  into  whose  hands  these  Lectures  may  fall,  will  perhaps  be  dis- 
appointed that  no  explicit  notice  is  taken  of  a  pamphlet  recently  published, 
in  which  the  Author  of  these  Lectures  and  the  church  to  which  he  ministers,  have 
been  so  unjustly  and  grossly  misrepresented  and  reproached.  To  such  persons, 
the  Author  would  remark,  that  the  ridicule,  vulgarity  and  personal  abuse  con- 
tained in  that  pamplilet,  are  such  as  to  render  it,  in  his  view,  inexpedient  to  no- 
tice it.  It  seemed,  moreover,  entirely  unnecessary ;  inasmuch  as  all  the  sem- 
blance of  argument  that  pamphlet  contains,  being  found  in  more  reputable  pub- 
lications on  that  side  of  the  question,  might  be  otherwise  duly  noticed,  in  the 
establishment  of  the  truth  on  this  sacred  and  important  subject.      Ja7i.  20,  1835. 


NOTE    B. 

Rom.  6  :  4.  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  nevraess  of  life."  Col.  2  :  12.  "Buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism, wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  take  the  ground  that  it  is  the 
design  of  baptism  to  symbolize  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ ;  and  hence 
they  say  baptism  must  be  performed  by  immersion  ;  and  they  seem  to  rely  upon 
these  texts  in  proof  of  their  position.  But  we  think  they  are  entirely  mistaken 
in  their  understanding  of  these  texts.  That  they  do  not  refer  to  the  77iode  of  bap- 
tism, will  appear  evident  from  a  careful  examination  of  them.  I  will  give  you 
the  views  of  the  following  judicious  and  excellent  men.  Scott  says,  "  The  Apos- 
tle most  emphatically  shows,  that  all  who  had  been  baptized  into  the  name  and 
religion  of  Jesus,  had  received  the  sign,  and  made  the  profession  of  communion 
with  him  and  conformity  to  him  in  his  death  ;  that  in  virtue  of  his  dying  for  their 
sins,  they  should  die  to  all  sin,  and  have  done  with  their  former  unholy  indul- 
gences, pursuits,  habits  and  connections.  This  profession  was  equivalent  to  being 
"  buried  with  Christ,"  as  dead  with  him.  For  as  his  burial  was  a  manifestation 
that  he  was  really  dead,  and  an  introduction  to  his  immediate  resurrection  by  the 
glorious  power  of  the  Father,  and  for  the  display  of  his  glory  :  so  the  baptism  of 
a  converted  JflHV  or  Gentile,  was  a  professed  manifestation  of  his  death  to  sin, 
and  to  all  bis  carnal  expectations,  affections  and  pursuits,  from  which  he  meant 
15 


114 


APPENDIX. 


to  be  entirely  excluded,  as  one  biuied  is  from  the  aflairs  of  life  ;  and  it  was  a 
professed  introduction  to  his  walking  in  newness  of  life."  He  says,  moreover, 
that  "  no  argnment  is  deducible  from  the  expression,  '  buried  with  him  in  baptism 
into  death,'    showing  that  immersion  is  necessary  to  baptism."* 

Stuart,  commenting  on  the  same  text,  says,  "  The  Apostle  had  in  view  only  a 
burying  which  is  moral  and  spiritual ;  for  the  same  reason  that  he  had  a  moral 
and  spiritual  (not  a  physical)  resurrection  in  view  in  the  corresponding  antithe- 
sis."—  "  As  Christ  died  and  was  buried  in  a  physical  sense,  for,  or  on  account  of 
sin;  so  we  die  and  are  buried  in  a  moral  or  spiritual  sense,  when  we  solemnly 
profess  and  engage  to  hate  sin  and  renounce  it,  as  we  do  in  baptism."  "  I  find 
nothing  in  all  the  ritual  use  of  water,  as  an  emblem  of  purification  and  consecra- 
tion to  God,  which  seems  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  use  of  baptism  by  immer- 
sion as  a  symbol  of  Christ's  literal  death  and  burial."  "  In  fact,  it  is  plain,  that 
reference  is  here  made  to  baptism,  because  when  the  rite  was  performed,  the 
Christian  promised  to  renounce  sin,  and  to  mortify  all  his  evil  desires,  and  thus 
to  die  unto  sin,  that  he  might  live  unto  God;  I  cannot  see,  therefore,  that  there 
is  any  more  necessary  reference  here  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  than  there  is  to  the 
mode  of  the  resurrection.      The  one  may  as  well  be  maintained  as  the  other."* 

Wardlaw,  conmienting  on  these  words,  says,  "  The  simple  meaning  is  this  : 
since,  in  our  being  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  we  were  baptized  into  his  death  — 
into  the  faith  of  his  death,  as  the  death  of  a  surety;  we  may  be  considered  as,  by 
faith,  partaking  with  him  in  his  death,  —  as  buried  with  him  ;  and  that  with  the 
special  end  of  our  rising  with  him,  in  a  spiritual  resemblance  to  his  resurrection, 
and  walking  in  newness  of  life.  Now  it  is  quite  obvious,  that  the  argument  of 
the  Apostle  has  not  the  remotest  connection  with  the  mode  of  baptism. "t 

Cogswell,  commenting  on  the  words,  says,  "  '  Buried  with  Christ  by  baptism 
into  death,'  is  a  phrase  similar  in  meaning  to  '  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death,'  and  '  crucified  with  him,'  phrases  used  in  the  same  chapter.  They  are 
figurative  expressions,  and  mean  that  believers  are,  or  should  be,  dead  to  sin  — 
as  much  so  as  one  buried,  planted,  or  crucified,  would  be  to  the  affairs  of  this  life. 
The  Apostle  has  not  the  least  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  Indeed  there 
is  not  the  least  resemblance  between  the  death  of  Christ,  and  baptism  by  immer- 
sion. Had  Christ  died  by  being  drowned,  there  might  have  been  a  likeness  to 
his  death  in  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion  ;  but  as  Christ  died  on  the  cross 
there  can  be  none."t 

Many  other  authors  might  be  quoted  to  sustain  these  views,  but  it  cannot  be 
necessary.  After  looking  at  these  texts  carefully,  it  does  seem  to  us  that  they 
furnish  no  proof  that  the  design  of  baptism  is  to  symbolize  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ ;  or  that  Paul  meant  to  teach  that  inunersion  is  the  only  mode 
of  baptism. 

Another  text,  Inought  sometimes  by  the  advocates  of  immersion,  on  this  point, 
is,  1  Cor.  15  :  29.  "  Else  what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead,  if 
the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  wliy  are  they  then  baptized  for  the  dead  ?  "  This  text, 
it  is  confessed  by  all  connnentators,  is  obscure  and  of  difficult  interpretation;  but 
that  it  should  have  ever  been  adduced  to  support  the  idea,  that  it  is  the  design  of 
baptism  to  symbolize  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  the  greatest  mystery 
attending  it. 

McKnigiit,  with  much  plausibility,  gives  this  interpretation,  to  wit :  "  As  our 
Lord  termed  the  suilerings  he  was  to  undergo  at  Jerusalem,  *  a  baptism   with 

*  In  loco.  t  In  loco,  p.  117.  J  Thco.  Class  Book,  p.  1C9. 


APPENDIX.  115 

which  he  was  to  l)c  baptized,'  and  declared  that  James  and  John  •  should  be  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  he  was  to  bo  baptized  with,'  —  that  is,  should  undergo 
like  sutFerinj^s  with  him,  ending  in  death  —  so  the  Apostle,  in  representing  the 
suflerings  which  the  first  Christians  endured,  under  the  idea  of  a  baptism,  adopted 
his  ."Master's  phraseology,  and  reasoned  strongly,  when  he  asked  the  Corinthians, 
'  What  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for  believing  and  testifying  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  "'* 

Doddridge  gives  this  interpretation;  "  If  the  hopes  of  Christians  were  not  as  I 
have  stated,  what  should  they  do  who  are  baptized  in  token  of  their  embracing 
the  Christian  faith  in  the  room  of  the  dead  who  are  just  fallen  in  the  cause  of 
Christ,  but  are  supported  by  a  succession  of  new  converts,  who  immediately  offer 
themselves  to  fill  up  their  places,  as  ranks  of  soldiers  that  advance  to  the  combat 
in  the  room  of  their  companions  who  have  just  been  slain  in  their  sight?  If  the 
dead  are  not  raised  at  all,  why  are  they  nevertheless  thus  baptized  in  the  room  of 
the  dead,  as  ready,  at  the  peril  of  their  lives,  to  keep  up  the  cause  of  Jesus  in  the 
world  ?  And  indeed,  how  could  my  conduct  be  accounted  for  in  any  other  light, 
but  by  supposing  that  we  act  with  a  steady  and  governing  view  to  this  great  prin- 
ciple and  this  glorious  hope."*  Scott  and  others  adopt  this  as  the  true  interpre- 
tation; and  every  unbiased  mind  will  approve  it.  Thus  understood,  this  text 
furnishes  no  allusion  to  the  design  or  mode  of  baptism;  and  we  verily  believe  it 
would  never  have  been  cited  by  the  advocates  of  immersion,  if  they  were  not 
straitened  for  proof. 

Another  text  sometimes  cited  on  this  point  by  the  advocates  of  immersion  is, 
1  Peter,  3  :  21.  "The  like  figure  whoreunto  even  baptism  doth  also  now  save 
us,  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  agood  conscience 
towards  God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  This  text,  like  the  pre- 
ceding, furnisiies  no  support  in  favor  of  exclusive  immersion.  The  true  meaning, 
as  A.  Clarke  observes,  is  this :  "  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved  by  water  :  that 
is,  it  was  the  instrument  of  their  being  saved  through  the  good  providence  of  God. 
So  the  water  of  baptism,  typifying  the  regenerating  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  the  means  of  salvation  to  all  those  who  receive  this  Holy  Spirit,  in  its  quicken- 
ing, cleansing  efficacy.  Now  as  the  waters  of  the  flood  could  not  have  saved 
Noah  and  his  family,  had  they  not  made  use  of  the  ark  ;  so  the  water  of  bap- 
tism saves  no  man,  but  as  it  is  the  means  of  typifying  to  him  purification  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  ark  was  not  innnersed  in  the  water;  had  it  been  so,  they  must 
all  have  perished;  but  it  was  borne  up  on  the  water,  and  sprinkled  with  the  rain 
that  fell  from  heaven.  This  text,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  says  nothing  in  behalf  of 
immersion  in  baptism;  but  is  rather,  from  the  circumstance  mentioned  above,  in 
favor  of  sprinkling.'"*  The  above  are  all  the  texts  usually  cited  and  relied 
upon,  to  show  that  the  design  of  baptism  is  to  represent  the  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  All  who  will  examine  them  candidly,  must  see  that  they  entirely 
fail  of  sustaining  that  supposition.  And  therefore  that  the  argument  built  upon 
them,  in  favor  of  exclusive  immersion,  falls  to  the  ground. 

I  will  Jigain  ask  the  reader's  attention  to  the  gross  misrepresentations,  some- 
times made  of  Pa^dobaptist  authors.      To  take  a  single  case  for  example. 

The  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  sometimes  quote  Prof.  Stuart  as  saying, 
"  Bapto  and  haptizo  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerge  into  anything  liquid.  All 
lexicograpliers  and  critics  are  agreed  in  this."      Now  this  is  true.      Prof.  Stuart 

Com   ill  loco 


il6  APPENDIX. 

does  say  so.  But,  be  it  remembered,  be  does  not  say  tbat  dip,  plunge,  or  im- 
merge  is  the  oji/y  meaning.  No  —  never.  On  the  contrary,  lije  proceeds  forth;- 
with  to  show,  and  does  fhow  conclusively  that  bapto  and  haptizo^  and  especial- 
ly baptizo,  as  he  affirms,  (p.  308,)  have  "  other  meanings,  viz:  to  wash,  to  be* 
dew,  or  7noisten ;"  which,  he  says,  "are  more  clearly  and  fully  exhibited." 
And  after  a  thorough  examination  extended  to  some  sixty  pages;  Prof.  Stuart 
says,  (p.  337,)  "be  considers  it  quite  plain"  that  7i072e  of  the  Bible  evidence 
which  he  had  examined,  "  proves  immersion  to  have  been  exclusively  the  mode 
of  Christian  baptism,  or  even  that  of  John."  Mr.  Stuart  says,  he  "  considers  this 
a  point  so  far  made  out,  that  he  can  hardly  suppress  the  conviction,  that  if  any 
one  maintains  the  contrary,  it  must  be  either  because  he  is  unable  rightly  to  es- 
timate the  nature  or  power  of  the  Greek  language;  or  because  he  is  influenced 
in  some  measure  by  party  feeling ;  or  else  because  he  has  looked  at  the  subject 
in  only  a  partial  manner,  without  examining  it  fully  and  thoroughly."  As  to  the 
idea  that  words  have  but  one  meaning,  says  Prof.  Stuart,  (p.  384,)  "  Every  Lex- 
icon on  earth  contradicts"  it,  "  and  always  must  contradict  it." 

Again  :  Prof.  Stuart  is  represented  as  saying  that  the  early  Christians  did 
"  practice  immersion."  This  is  true.  He  does  say  so.  But  in  the  very  next 
paragraph  he  affirms,  (p.  361,)  that  S'  aspersion  and  aflusion"  also  were  "  prac- 
ticed in  primitive  times."  Mr.  Stuart  never  says  that  immersion  was  the  only 
mode  practiced  in  the  primitive  churches. 

The  etlbrts  of  some  of  the  advocates  of  immersion  to  use  Prof.  Stuart's  name 
in  support  of  their  exclusive  views,  are  exceedingly  unjust,  and  betray  feelings 
which  no  candid  man  possesses.  He  who  reads  the  whole  of  Prof.  Stuart's  Es- 
say, will  see  that  the  Professor  never  admits  nor  affirms  that  the  07ily  meaning 
of  baptizo  is  immersion  ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  he  maintains  and  shows  that  it 
means  affiision  also.  He  will  see  too,  that  Mr.  Stuart  does  not  say  nor  even  in- 
timate, tbat  immersion  was  the  only  mode  practiced  in  primitive  times  ;  but  that 
be  does  say  aflusion  also  was  practiced.  It  is  matter  of  grief  to  all  honest  minds, 
that  the  writings  of  so  amiable  and  excellent  a  man  as  Prof.  Stuart,  should  be  so 
cruelly  misrepresented  and  perverted  under  the  "  influence  of  party  feeling." 


NOTE    C. 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  immersion  tell  us  that  the  definitions  put  down  last 
in  our  Lexicons,  are  of  little  value,  compared  with  those  put  down  Jirst.  Say 
they,  if  twenty  definitions  are  given,  several  of  the  last  are  liardly  worth  noticing. 
Verily  this  is  a  new  discovery.  Is  it  not  a  rule  established  by  all  philologists, 
and  one  with  which  every  young  Tyro  in  our  high  schools  is  perfectly  acquainted, 
that  we  are  always  to  select  the  definition  which  expresses  the  evident  design  of 
the  writer  and  the  evident  meaning  of  the  sentence  .'  Whether  it  be  the  first  or 
the  fortieth  definition,  is  entirely  immaterial.  The  last  may  not  be  in  as  frequent 
use  as  the  first ;  but  the  authority  for  the  last  definition  is  as  good  as  that  of 
the  first.  Take  for  example  the  Greek  word  aionios  defined  in  Latin,  ceturnus, 
cBVum,  mnndus,  seciihtm.  Take  the  definition  atnrnus  :  the  English  defini- 
tions are  eternal ;  continual ;  perpetual ;  lasting  ;  of  Ions;  continuance  ; 
during  life.  The  last  two  of  these  definitions  have  as  high  authority  in  their 
favor  as  the  first  two.  Even  in  the  Bible,  the  word  aionios  is  used  when  the 
last  two  definitions  are  the  only  ones,  that  can  be  selected  according  to  the  evi- 


APPENDIX.  117 

dent  design  of  the  writer  ;  for  example,  everlasting  priesthood,  (Exo.  40 —  15;) 
everlasting  doors  (Ps.  24 — 7;)  everlasting  monntains  and  perpetual  hills, 
(Hab.  3  :  —  6.)  Here  the  Septuagint  use  aionios ;  and  in  each  of  these,  and 
all  like  phrases  in  tiie  Bible  and  in  common  conversation,  the  word  eternal  de- 
notes lo7ig  continuance,  or  during  life;  and  hence  the  authority  for  these  defini- 
■tiong  is  as  high  as  for  that  of  the  first  two  definitions.  And  no  understanding  theolo- 
gian, in  controverting  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  would  take  the  ground  that 
fBturnus  has  but  one  meaning.  "On  the  other  hand  he  would  put  the  defence  of 
his  cause. on  the  ground  that  aionios,  (though  it  sonitimes  means  of  long  continu- 
ance and  during  life,)  when  applied  to  God  ;  to  heaven  ;  to  hell  ;  means  dura- 
tion without  end  ;  as  appears  from  the  connection  of  the  words  and  the  evident 
meaning  of  the  writer.  Hence  we  see  that  the  authority  for  the  last  definition  of 
words  is  as  full  as  that  of  the  first.  I  might  here  add,  that  all  the  definitions  ia 
pur  standard  Dictionaries,  are  put  down  because  all  these  various  definitions  are 
sanctioned  by  established  usage.  All  the  definitions  of  baptizo  and  of  all  other 
words  in  standard  Lexicons,  are  of  established  authority.  And  I  cannot  here  for- 
bear the  observation,  that  the  man  who  attempts  to  advocate  exclusive  immersioa 
on  the  ground  that  afiusion  may  not  be  the  ^rs<  definition  of  baptizo,  wjiile  he 
admits  that  it  is  one  of  the  last  definitions,  both  betrays  the  weakness  of  his  own 
cause,  and  in  effect,  yields  the  point  in  debate.  Though  he  may  attempt  to  excite 
ridicule,  by  talking  about  the  twentieth  definition  of  a  word,  and  tell  us  that  defi- 
nitions increase  in  value  in  a  ten-fold  proportion,  every  lover  of  truth,  and  every 
man  of  conmion  sense,  will  turn  with  disgust  from  his  foolish  sophistry. 


NOTE    D. 

January  31,  1835. 

During  the  present  month,  Eev.  Samuel  Miller,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical 
History  and  Church  Government  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  has  pub- 
lished a  Mamial,  comprising  fouj-  discourses,  on  the  Subjectsand  Mode  of  Baptism, 
a  copy  of  which  has  been  received,  through  the  kindness  of  the  venerable  Author, 
just  as  the  last  sheets  of  the  foregoing  Lectures  were  passing  through  the  press.  I 
have  been  gratified,  on  reading  this  Manual,  to  observe  how  fully  and  ably  Dr. 
Miller  has  sustained  the  leading  positions  laid  down  in  my  Lectures.  The  follow- 
ing extracts  will  give  the  reader  a  specimen  of  that  interesting  work.  — 

On  the  7node  of  baptism,  says  Dr.  Miller, —  "The  word  Baptizo  does  not 
necessarily,  nor  even  commonly,  signify  to  immerse  ;  but  implies  to  wash,  to 
sprinkle,  to  pour  on  water,  and  to  tinge  or  dye  with  any  liquid."  Again,  says  he, 
"  The  most  mature  and  competent  Greek  scholars  that  ever  lived,  have  decided, 
that  many  examples  of  the  use  of  this  word  occur  in  Scripture,  in  which  it  not  only 
may,  but  manifestly  7nust  signify  sprinkling,  perfusion,  or  washing  in  any  way." 
Again  :  "  To  immerge  is  one  of  the  senses  which  may  be  applied  to  baptizo,  yet 
it  is  so  far  from  being  the  universal,  the  necessary  meaning,  that  it  is  not  even  the 
common  meaning."  Again;  "It  is  really  imposing  on  public  credulity  to  insist  that 
it  always  does  and  necessarily  must  signify  immersion.  All  impartial  judges  —  by 
which  I  mean  all  the  most  profound  and  mature  Greek  scholars,  who  are  neither 
theologians  nor  sectarians,  agree  in  pronouncing  that  baptizo  imports  the  applica- 
tion of  water  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  wetting,  as  well  as  by  plunging."  Again  : 
"  When  the  inspired  writers  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  being  imparted  to  men,  they  . 
alway.^  represent  it  by  the  figures  of  sprinkling,  pouring  out,  falling  or  resting  upon 


118  APPENDIX. 

Surely  then,  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion,  being  invariably,  the  favorite  fig- 
ures of  the  inspired  writers  ;  all  attempts  to  turn  this  mode  of  applying  the  water 
in  baplisni  into  ridicule,  is  really  nothing  less  than  shameless  ridicule  of  the  state- 
ments and  language  of  God's  own  word."  Again:  "There  is  not  the  smallest 
probability  that  John  the  Baptist,  ever  baptized  an  individual  by  immersion."  — 
Again,  says  he,  "  The  proof  that  affusion  was  practiced  in  the  first  centuries  after 
Christ  is  so  complete  and  indubitable,  that  no  one  really  acquainted  with  the  early 
history  of  the  church,  will  think  for  a  moment  of  calling  it  in  question.  These 
testimonies,"  says  he,  "  must,  it  appears  to  me,  satisfy  every  impartial  mind  that 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  down  to  the  reformation  ;  affusion  in  baptism,  as 
well  as  immersion,  has  been  in  constant  use  —  and  that  it  has  ever  been  consider- 
ed as  a  part  of  Christian  liberty  to  use  either  mode  as  may  be  conscientiously 
preferred."  "By  affusion,"  says  he,  "  which  is  no  doubt  the  most  scriptural 
and  edifying,  baptism  may  be  performed  with  equal  ease  and  convenience  in  all 
coimtries  :  at  all  seasons  of  the  year :  in  all  situations  of  health  or  sickness : 
with  equal  safety  by  all  ministers,  whether  young  or  old,  athletic  or  feeble  :  and 
in  all  circumstances  that  can  well  be  conceived.  How  admirably  does  this  ac- 
cord with  the  gospel  economy  which  is  not  intended  to  be  confined  to  any  one 
people,  or  to  any  particular  climate  ;  but  is  equally  adapted,  in  all  its  principles, 
and  in  all  its  rites,  to  every  kindred,  and  people,  and  nation,  and  tongue." 

On  Infant  Baptism,  Dr.  M.  is  exceedingly  interesting.  I  have  room  to  ex- 
tract only  on  a  single  point —  the  history  of  the  Church.  Says  he,  "I  can  affirm 
with  the  utmost  confidence,  after  much  careful  inquiry  on  the  subject,  that,  for 
more  than  1500  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ  there  was  not  a  single  Society  of 
professing  Christians  on  earth,  who  opposed  Infant  Baptism  on  anything  like  the 
grounds  which  distinguish  our  modern  Baptist  brethren.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact 
that  the  people  known  in  ecclesiastical  history  under  the  name  of  Anabaptists  ; 
who  arose  in  Cermany  in  the  year  1.522,  were  the  very  first  body  of  people,  in 
the  whole  Christian  world,  who  rejected  the  baptism  of  hifants  on  the  principles 
now  adopted  by  its  opposers  —  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  this  is  even 
so."  Again,  after  producing  his  testimonies,  (substantially  the  same  I  have  pro- 
duced in  my  Lectures,)  he  adds,  "  If  then  historical  statements  be  correct,  and 
that  they  are  so,  is  just  as  well  attested,  as  any  facts  whatever  in  the  annals  of 
the  church  ;  the  amount  of  the  whole  is  conclusive  —  is  demonstration,  that  for 
1500  years  after  Christ,  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism  was  universal;  during 
the  whole  of  that  time,  Infant  Baptism  was  the  general,  unopposed  practice  of  tiie 
Christian  church."  Thus  far  Ur.  Miller  —  a  man,  who  for  piety,  candor,  learning 
.and  a  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical  history,  is  not  excelled  by  any  man  in  this  coun- 
try ;  probably  not  by  any  man  on  earth  at  the  present  time.  In  view  of  his  tes- 
timony, and  the  facts  and  arguments  presented  in  the  foregoing  Lectures  ;  it  is 
preposterous  for  any  man,  at  this  day,  who  professes  an  acquaintance  with  the 
Greek  language  and  with  ecclesiastical  history,  to  say  that  allusion  is  not  a  gos- 
pel mode  of  baptism  or  that  this  mode  has  not  always  been  practiced  ;  and  that 
Infant  Baptism  has  not  been  practiced  ever  since  the  days  of  Christ. 


ERRATA. 

The  following  errors  escaped  notice  till  it  was  too   late  for  correction,  viz. 

Pa<»e  9,  Line  11,      for  langaage  read  language 

14,        <'       7,       "    Ilenee  "  Hence 

14,  bottom  line,  take  away  with. 

15,  line     7,      for  in                                "  an 
17,  "      S,       "    acceptance  "  acceptance 

20,  "  23,       "    cleasne  "  cleanse  [Bap. 

21,  "  33,      "    Wall,  Hist.  In.  Bap.  Part  H.  Chap.  9.  read  Walker,  Doc. 
21,  bottom  line,  "    Wall,  part II.  Chap,  9,  read  Walker,  Doc.  Bap. 
23,  line  16,    for  7— 8                        read      7:   4,8. 
25,  "  15,  take  away  Walker. 
30,  "       4,      insert   "   after  Ghost. 
32,  "  11,      for  above  read  above 
35,  "       1,      "       ef                             "         of 
38,  "  26,      "       introduced                 "         introduced 
55,  "       9,      after   martyrdom,    insert   " 
57,  "       7,      before   Martin,  take  away    '* 
57,  "  12,      for  triune  read  trine 
62,  "  28,      for   .'   read  ; 
62,  Same  line,  take  away    It  is  plain  that 
69,  line  11,      after  27,   insert   ) 
73,  "  13,      for  thier  read  their 

83,  "     12,      for  diseiples  read  disciples 

84,  "     26,      for  vvbicli  read  which 
88,        Second  line  from  bottom,  for  Sec.  Vol.  read  Lee.  Vol.  2. 

for  objections  read  objection 
after  faith,  insert   ( 
for  renounoing  read  renouncing 
for  immerson  read  immersion 
for  then  read  these 


«  92, 

line     9, 

'  95, 

"       4, 

'101, 

'•      6, 

•112, 

"    22 

•118, 

"     32, 

Date  Due 

! 

f) 

hmum 


rfmwmi' 


